Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00433/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00433-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sara V. Centeno
Defendant
Coalinga State Hospital
Defendant
Robert Sims
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

ROBERT SIMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00433-EPG (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THIS CASE PROCEED ONLY ON 

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO

PROTECT AGAINST DEFENDANT 

CENTENO

(ECF Nos. 1, 7, 8)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 14 

DAYS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Robert Sims is a civil detainee at the Department of State Hospitals-Coalinga 

and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed mainly pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Generally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to protect him from a 

patient at Coalinga who made a weapon and attacked him. (ECF No. 1). 

On June 21, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and concluded that only 

Plaintiff’s claim for failure to protect against Defendant Sara V. Centeno should proceed. (ECF 

No. 7). The Court explained why the complaint otherwise failed to state any claims and gave 

Plaintiff thirty days to either file (1) a notice to go forward on his cognizable claim, (2) an 

amended complaint; or (3) a notice to stand on his complaint and have it reviewed by a district 

judge.

Case 1:24-cv-00433-KES-EPG Document 10 Filed 07/11/24 Page 1 of 2
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

On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a response to the screening order, stating that he wanted 

to proceed only on his failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Centeno. (ECF No. 8). 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 

June 21, 2024, (ECF No. 7), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 

proceed on the only claim that the Court found cognizable (ECF No. 8), IT IS 

RECOMMENDED that all claims and Defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s failureto-protect claim against Defendant Centeno

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 

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

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)). 

Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 

judge to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00433-KES-EPG Document 10 Filed 07/11/24 Page 2 of 2