Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01118/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01118-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Honnold
Defendant
Vance Edward Johnson
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. HONNOLD, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN OF 

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 11)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 6.) No other parties 

have appeared in the action.

On September 10, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and concluded 

that Plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against 

Defendant Honnold, but no other claims or Defendants. (ECF No. 12.) The Court 

ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness 

to proceed only on his cognizable claim. On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff notified the 

Court of his willingness to forgo an amended complaint and proceed with his cognizable 

claim. (ECF No. 13.) 

Accordingly, all claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint except for his Eighth Amendment 

Case 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS Document 14 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 2
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

medical indifference claim against Defendant Honnold should now be dismissed. 

The Court hereby RECOMMENDS the following:

1. Plaintiff may proceed on his Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim

against Defendant Honnold; and 

2. All other claims and Defendants be DISMISSED from this action; 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

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

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 

fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may result in the 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 28, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS Document 14 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 2