Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01046/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01046-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Bakersfield
Defendant
Frye
Defendant
Roberto Johnson
Plaintiff
Kern County Jail
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

1:22-cv-01046-ADA-SKO (PC)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 12)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Plaintiff Roberto Johnson is a former county and current state inmate proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2023, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 10.) The Court found 

Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Frye 

but failed to state any other cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id. at 5-10.) Plaintiff 

was directed to do one of the following within 21 days: (1) notify the Court he did not wish to file 

an amended complaint and instead was willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment failure 

to protect claim against Defendant Frye with the remaining claims to be dismissed; or (2) file a 

first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s order, or (3) file a notice 

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 14 Filed 09/01/23 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 11.) 

On July 6, 2023, it came to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff had not been served with the 

First Screening Order due to an oversight in the Clerk’s Office, and Plaintiff was served by mail 

that same date. (See Docket Entry dated 7/6/23.) 

On August 10, 2023, when more than 21 days elapsed without Plaintiff’s response, the 

Court issued its Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Action for Plaintiff’s Failure to Obey 

Court Orders and Failure to Prosecute. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff was advised any objections were due 

within 14 days of the date of service. (Id. at 4.) 

On August 30, 2023,1 Plaintiff filed his Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 

(Doc. 13.) 

II. DISCUSSION

As noted above, following screening, Plaintiff was directed to file either a first amended 

complaint, or a notice of his willingness to proceed on the claim found cognizable by the Court, 

or a notice of voluntary dismissal. When Plaintiff did not respond, the Court issued Findings and 

Recommendations to dismiss the action for Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court orders and failure to 

prosecute. Plaintiff has now indicated he previously submitted notice indicating his wish to 

proceed on the claim found cognizable by the Court. While the Court did not receive or file any 

document or pleading from Plaintiff following issuance of the Court’s screening order until 

receipt of Plaintiff’s objections filed August 30, 2023, Plaintiff has provided a copy of his 

notification as an exhibit to his objections. That document states: “Plaintiff is notifying this Court 

that he would like to proceed against Defendant Frye,” (Doc. 13 at 4-5 [Ex. A]), it is signed and 

dated July 25, 2023, and includes a proof of service. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court will vacate its

Findings and Recommendations to dismiss this action for a failure to obey court orders and 

failure to prosecute.

Further, because Plaintiff has indicated his willingness to proceed on his Eighth 

Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Frye, the Court will now recommend the 

1 The objections were signed and dated on August 22, 2023.

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 14 Filed 09/01/23 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

remaining claims and defendants named in Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed and that this action 

proceed on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Frye. 

III. ORDERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Action for a Failure to Obey Court 

Orders and Failure to Prosecute (Doc. 10) are VACATED; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to designate Plaintiff’s “Ex Parte Application 

to Conduct Limited Discovery” (Doc. 9 [docketed as “Motion to Conduct Limited 

Discovery”]) as resolved. This request was addressed in the Court’s First Screening 

Order (Doc. 10 at 10-11), and is moot in light of the recommendation below to dismiss 

Does 1 through 10.

For the reasons given above, the Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action PROCEED solely on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect 

claim against Defendant Frye, the remaining claims to be dismissed; and

2. Defendants Kern County Jail, the City of Bakersfield, and Does 1 through 10, be 

DISMISSED from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 

this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 

Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 

document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 14 Filed 09/01/23 Page 3 of 3