Balaji

(PC) Carr v. Balaji

Bad Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 22, 20212:19-cv-00688California320 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARTHUR CARR, No. 2:19-cv-688-TLN-EFB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. BALAJI, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel and in forma pauperis in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 28, 2021, the court informed plaintiff that he could proceed with Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Balaji and Gurm and state law negligence claims against defendants Balaji, Magsayo, Suson, and Gurm, or he could file a second amended complaint in an effort to also state claims against defendants Church, Gates, Singh, and Recarey. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff has elected not to amend his complaint and to proceed only with the claims identified by the court. ECF No. 33. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Church, Gates, Singh, and Recarey be dismissed without prejudice. These findings and recommendations are…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.