1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY JONES, Case No.: 1:22-cv-1119 JLT SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, 13 v. DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT HERNANDEZ, AND 14 D. COREE, et al., DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO UPDATE THE DOCKET 15 Defendants. (Doc. 16) 16 17 Jeremy Jones seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his constitutional rights 18 while housed at Kern Valley State Prison. The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s 19 second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff stated the 20 following cognizable claims: (1) Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against 21 defendants Jimenez and Goree (Claims 1 & 5); (2) Fourteenth Amendment due process claims 22 against defendants Goree, Brown, Thomas, Cortez, and Valdez (Claim 2); (3) First Amendment 23 retaliation claims against defendants Jimenez and Brown (Claim 3); and (4) Eighth Amendment 24 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against defendants Jackson, Castro, 25 Igbinosa, Ahlmeyer, Grewal, Ramos,1 Pena, Mejia, Montes, Navarro, Serda, Stovall, and Jane or 26 27 1 The magistrate judge inadvertently omitted Defendant Ramos from her recommendation that the action proceed as 1 John Doe (Claim 4). (Doc. 16 at 5-16, 18.) However, the magistrate judge determined that 2 Plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id. at 16-18.) 3 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 2.) 4 Plaintiff indicates that he has one “minor objection” related to Claim 5. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff 5 questions why the Court’s analysis of Claim 4 for does not also apply to Claim 5. (Id. at 1.) He 6 states, “If it is because medical cannot be held liable for a condition of confinement, then [he] 7 has no argument.” (Id.) Plaintiff indicates that he otherwise “accepts these findings and 8 recommendations.” (Id. at 2.) 9 Claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs are distinct from claims related 10 to conditions of confinement. Towards this end, a plaintiff may state a claim against a defendant 11 for deliberate indifference to a medical need but fail to state a claim for conditions of 12 confinement, or vice versa. See, e.g., Estelle v. Gamble,

(1976) (dismissing a 13 medical needs claim and permitting a condition of confinement claim to proceed). Thus, the 14 finding that Plaintiff stated a claim for deliberate indifference to medical care does not mandate a 15 finding that Plaintiff also stated a claim related to the conditions of confinement. 16 The magistrate judge construed Claim 5 as including claims against identified Reasonable 17 Accommodation Panel (RAP) members and Hernandez, who reviewed Plaintiff’s 1824 Request to 18 cover his back window and/or be housed in a cell with a tinted window. (Doc. 16 at 17-18.) The 19 magistrate judge found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against RAP members and Hernandez 20 because Plaintiff failed to show any “casual connection or link between the actions of these 21 defendants and the deprivation allegedly suffered by Plaintiff.” (Id. at 18.) In his objections, 22 Plaintiff does not identify any allegations in the SAC that link these defendants to the alleged 23 constitutional violation or otherwise identify any new allegations that would cure this deficiency. 24 To the extent Plaintiff asserted in Claim 5 that “he was without a television, radio, and 25 hotpot for about six months in violation of his constitutional rights,” the Magistrate Judge found 26 he failed to state a claim related to conditions of confinement, because “[s]uch amount to routine 27 discomforts and are not sufficiently grave to warrant relief.” (Doc. 16 at 18, citation omitted.) It 1 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 2 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated May 30, 2025 (Doc. 16) are 5 ADOPTED in full. 6 2. This action PROCEEDS only on the following claims in the SAC (Doc. 12): 7 a. Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against Defendants 8 Jimenez and Goree; 9 b. Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants Goree, 10 Brown, Thomas, Cortez, and Valdez; 11 C. First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Jimenez and 12 Brown; and 13 d. Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against 14 defendants Jackson, Castro, Igbinosa, Ahlmeyer, Grewal, Ramos, Pena, 15 Mejia, Montes, Navarro, Serda, Stovall, and Jane or John Doe. 16 3. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff's second amended complaint are DISMISSED. 17 4. Defendant Hernandez is DISMISSED from this action. 18 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket to: 19 a. Correct Defendant “D. Coree” to “D. Goree; 20 b. Terminate “K VSP Medical” as a defendant; and 21 C. Add the following as defendants: S. Ahlmeyer, Associate Warden Castro, 22 M. Grewal, Dr. Igbinosa, Associate Warden Jackson, A. Mejia, Y. Montes, 23 M. Navarro, B. Pena, E. Ramos, S. Serda, and S. Stovall. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ August 21, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28