Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01343/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01343-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Monaco Bazzo
Plaintiff
Bobbola
Defendant
S. Gates
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK MONACO BAZZO,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. GATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01343-ADA-CDB (PC) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS

 (Docs. 24-26)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 22, 2023, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 25.) The Court 

found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 24) stated cognizable Eighth Amendment 

conditions of confinement and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against 

Defendants Gates and Bobbola, and the unknown Does 1 through 5, but failed to state any other 

cognizable claims for relief against any other defendant. (Id. at 6-15.) Plaintiff was given 21 days 

to elect one of the following options: (1) to file a second amended complaint curing the 

deficiencies identified in the order; (2) to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on 

the claims found cognizable by the Court; or (3) to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 15-

16.) 

Case 1:21-cv-01343-KES-CDB Document 27 Filed 04/10/23 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

On March 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Reply to Court’s First 

Screening Order.” (See Doc. 26.) Plaintiff notifies the Court that he “stipulates that he does NOT 

wish to file any amendments or any other claims not already claimed.” (Id. at 2.) Further, Plaintiff 

notes that he “DID comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act by presenting the ‘GATES’ claim to 

the California’s Government Claim Office, thus complied with CTCA pursuant to CA Gov. Code 

section 810 ....” (Id.) To the extent Plaintiff is objecting to the Court’s finding that Plaintiff had 

failed to state a cognizable state law claim (see Doc. 25 at 14-15), Plaintiff is informed that he is 

free to raise this objection in response to the instant findings and recommendations.

II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s First Screening Order (Doc. 25), 

the Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action PROCEED on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement 

and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Gates 

and Bobbola, and unknown Does 1 through 5; and

2. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be DISMISSED. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States 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: April 10, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01343-KES-CDB Document 27 Filed 04/10/23 Page 2 of 2