Larry Edwin Poole v. LJ Milusnic

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

LARRY EDWIN POOLE, ) Case No. EDCV 19-1872-JLS (JPR)

12

)

Plaintiff, )

13

) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

v. ) LEAVE TO AMEND

14

)

L.J. MILUSNIC et al., )

15

)

Defendants. )

16

)

17

18 On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff, a federal inmate at FCI-

19 Victorville proceeding pro se, filed a civil-rights action in the

20 Southern District of California; on September 27, it was

21 transferred here. He was subsequently granted leave to proceed

22 in forma pauperis. On October 11, 2019, he stated new factual

23 allegations in a “motion for supplement complaint.”

24 Plaintiff sues four employees of FCI-Victorville — Warden

25 L.J. Milusnic, Assistant Warden C. Swain, and correctional

26 officers Johnson and Patrick — in their official and individual

27

28

1

1 capacities1 under “42 U.S.C. § 1983.”2 His claims stem from his

2 transfer from a handicap-accessible cell to a non-handicap-

3 accessible cell in violation of the medical staff’s orders and

4 from the injuries he allegedly suffered as a result. He sues for

5 damages and injunctive relief.

6 As an initial matter, Plaintiff improperly brings his claims

7 under § 1983: as a federal prisoner challenging the actions of

8 federal employees, his claims arise under Bivens v. Six Unknown

9 Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),

10 which is the “federal analog to suits brought against state

11 officials under [§ 1983].” Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 255

12 n.2 (2006); see Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir.

13 2011). “[L]iberally constru[ing]” Plaintiff’s pro se filings,

14 however, as the Court must, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

15 (2007), it construes the lawsuit as a Bivens action. See

16 Valdovinos-Blanco v. Adler, 585 F. App’x 586, 587 (9th Cir. 2014)

17 (“Because [plaintiff] alleged wrongdoing at a federal prison[,]

18 . . . the magistrate judge properly characterized [his] claims as

19 an action under [Bivens], not an action under [§ 1983].”).

20 After screening the Complaint and Supplemental Complaint

21

22

1 Plaintiff actually did not check either box for Defendant

23 Patrick — individual or official capacity (Compl. at 2) — but the

Court assumes he sues him the same way he does the others.

24

25 2 Plaintiff also alleges that a “Counselor Campbell” “never

stops to visit [him] of his needs” and that when “Acting Unit

26 Manager” “Coates . . . does his rounds, he never addresses

[Plaintiff’s] needs.” (Compl. at 6.) Because he does not raise

27 any constitutional claims based on those allegations and apparently

makes them only to explain why he has not exhausted administrative

28

remedies (see id.), the Court does not address them here.

2

1 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, the Court finds that

2 their allegations largely fail to state a claim on which relief

3 might be granted. Because at least some of the claims might be

4 cured by amendment, the Complaint and Supplemental Complaint are

5 dismissed with leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

6 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (holding that pro se

7 litigant must be given leave to amend complaint unless absolutely

8 clear that deficiencies cannot be cured). If Plaintiff desires

9 to pursue any of his claims, he is ORDERED to file a first

10 amended complaint within 28 days of the date of this order,

11 remedying the deficiencies discussed below.

12 PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

13 In early August 2019, Plaintiff was housed in a “handicapped

14 cell” in FCI-Victorville’s Special Housing Unit. (Compl. at 5,

15 8.) Earlier that year, medical staff had ordered that he be

16 housed in one through June 2020 because he was suffering from

17 “recurrent episodes of syncope,”3 “dizziness[,] [and] vertigo”

18 stemming from his heart disease. (Id. at 5; see id. at 8-10;

19 id., Exs. B at 1-3 (medical records), C at 1-2 (medical records),

20 E at 1 (July 10, 2019 status sheet indicating that Plaintiff

21 should be housed in handicap-accessible cell), F at 1 (June 7,

22 2019 status sheet indicating same).) Specifically, he needed to

23 be housed in a cell with safety rails so that he could “hold on

24 every time he st[oo]d up or use[d] the rest room.” (Id., Ex. D

25 at 1; see id. at 5, 11.)

26

27 3 Syncope is the “[l]oss of consciousness and postural tone

caused by diminished cerebral blood flow.” Stedman’s Medical

28

Dictionary 1745 (27th ed. 2000).

3

1 On August 4, correctional officers Johnson and Patrick

2 removed Plaintiff and his cellmate, Kenneth Wilcox, from their

3 cell so that work could be done on its “backed up sewer drain”

4 and transferred them to a non-handicap-accessible cell. (Id. at

5 5; see id. at 8; Wilcox Decl. at 1-2.)4 When Plaintiff arrived

6 at the new cell, he showed Johnson his status sheets instructing

7 that he be housed in a handicap-accessible cell with rails.

8 (Compl. at 5, 8; Wilcox Decl. at 2.) Johnson responded, “Sex

9 offenders do not need handicapped cells” and “[i]f you had not

10 checked in into [sic] protective custody for being a cho-mo,5 you

11 would not have not have [sic] had to move at all; [f]uck your

12 medical needs.” (Compl. at 5; see Wilcox Decl. at 3.)

13 The next day, Plaintiff “experienced an episode of vertigo”

14 while attempting to stand up and fell to the floor, “cutting and

15 scraping” his right wrist and forearm on the “bottom edge of [the

16 cell’s] shower which had been recently damaged, exposing a razor

17 sharp edge.” (Compl. at 5, 11.) He fell again on August 17,

18 2019, once more injuring his right wrist and forearm. (Id.)

19 On September 29, 2019, Plaintiff fell while getting out of

20 bed, “injuring his head and back.” (Suppl. Compl. at 2.) He

21 remained on the floor for two hours after staff had been notified

22 that he needed medical attention, but none was provided. (Id.)

23

4 Plaintiff has attached to the Complaint a statement signed

24

by Wilcox under “penalty of perjury,” corroborating some of the

25 Complaint’s allegations. (Wilcox Decl. at 3.) Although it is

captioned an “affidavit” (id. at 1), it has not been sworn before

26 a judge. Thus, the Court refers to it as a Declaration.

27 5 “Cho-mo” appears to be prison slang for a child molester.

See, e.g., Cooper v. San Bernardino Sheriff Dep’t, ED CV 16-00949-

28

PSG (PLA), 2017 WL 10511568, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2017).

4

1 When Patrick finally responded and was “informed of [Plaintiff’s]

2 medical needs,” he did not help. (Id.) The next day, Plaintiff

3 again fell and could not get up. (Id. at 3.) When Patrick

4 responded, he stated, “Being on the floor with an injured back is

5 no emergency.” (Id.) Later that day, Plaintiff’s cellmate

6 placed a note in the cell door stating that Plaintiff was having

7 chest pains and needed medical assistance. (Id.) Patrick passed

8 by the cell and stated, “I can see he’s at least breathing, so he

9 must be alive.” (Id.)

10 STANDARD OF REVIEW

11 A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure

12 to state a claim “where there is no cognizable legal theory or an

13 absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal

14 theory.” Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d

15 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (as amended) (citation omitted);

16 accord O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2008). In

17 considering whether a complaint states a claim, a court must

18 generally accept as true all the factual allegations in it.

19 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Hamilton v. Brown,

20 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). The court need not accept

21 as true, however, “allegations that are merely conclusory,

22 unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In

23 re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008)

24 (citation omitted); see also Shelton v. Chorley, 487 F. App’x

25 388, 389 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding that district court properly

26 dismissed civil-rights claim when plaintiff’s “conclusory

27 allegations” did not support it).

28 Although a complaint need not include detailed factual

5

1 allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted

2 as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

3 face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

4 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d

5 859, 863 (9th Cir. 2017). A claim is facially plausible when it

6 “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

7 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

8 at 678.

9 DISCUSSION

10 I. Plaintiff Cannot Assert Bivens Claims Against Defendants in

11 Their Official Capacity

12 Plaintiff has sued all four Defendants in their official

13 capacity. His official-capacity claims are properly treated as

14 claims against the Defendants’ employing entity, the Federal

15 Bureau of Prisons. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166

16 (1985) (holding that “official-capacity suit is, in all respects

17 other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity”).

18 “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal

19 Government and its agencies from suit.” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.

20 v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). Sovereign immunity,

21 moreover, “is jurisdictional in nature,” id., and “[a] waiver of

22 sovereign immunity by the United States must be expressed

23 unequivocally,” Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali, A.C.

24 v. United States, 482 F.3d 1157, 1173 (9th Cir. 2007); see also

25 Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985). The

26 United States has not waived sovereign immunity on Bivens claims

27 for damages. See Rivera v. United States, 924 F.2d 948, 951 (9th

28 Cir. 1991). Thus, Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims against

6

1 Defendants — actually the BOP — are barred by sovereign

2 immunity.6

3 Moreover, Bivens held that although a federal agent’s

4 unconstitutional conduct under color of federal authority gives

5 rise to a cause of action for damages, 403 U.S. at 389; see also

6 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, it does so against the agent in his or

7 her individual capacity only, not against the United States,

8 agencies of the United States, or federal agents in their

9 official capacity, see Meyer, 510 U.S. at 484-86; Consejo de

10 Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali, 482 F.3d at 1173.

11 Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot assert a Bivens claim against

12 any Defendant in his or her official capacity.

13 II. Plaintiff Fails to State a Colorable Eighth Amendment Claim

14 Against Defendants Milusnic and Swain

15 A. Applicable Law

16 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Eighth

17 Amendment by being deliberately indifferent to his safety and

18 medical needs. (Compl. at 3-5.) The Supreme Court has

19 recognized an implied Bivens cause of action for claims alleging

20 deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s medical needs. See

21 Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980). And although courts

22 are split on whether an implied Bivens claim exists for a

23 failure-to-protect claim, compare, e.g., Fleming v. Reed, No.

24

25

6 Plaintiff also seeks a “[r]estraining [o]rder to prevent

26 retaliation” and to be “placed back into [h]andicapped cell.”

(Compl. at 7.) Claims for injunctive relief against the federal

27 government are not barred by sovereign immunity, but they are not

properly brought under Bivens. See Solida v. McKelvey, 820 F.3d

28

1090, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2016).

7

1 EDCV 16-0684-PSG (AGR), 2019 WL 4196322, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July

2 23, 2019), accepted by 2019 WL 4195890 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2019),

3 with Chambers v. Herrera, No. 5:17-cv-2564-MWF-KES, 2019 WL

4 4391135, at *8-10 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2019), accepted by 2019 WL

5 5413883 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2019), the Court assumes for

6 screening purposes that it is cognizable.

7 Plaintiff had apparently been convicted at the time of the

8 alleged deprivation and so his claim is properly analyzed under

9 the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. See

10 Castro v. Cnty. of L.A., 833 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2016) (en

11 banc). The Eighth Amendment bars conditions of confinement that

12 are incompatible with “evolving standards of decency” or “involve

13 the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Estelle v.

14 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-03 (1976) (citations omitted). The

15 Constitution does not mandate that prison conditions be

16 comfortable, “but neither does it permit inhumane ones.” Farmer

17 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). “Prison officials have a

18 duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter,

19 food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.”

20 Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000).

21 “To find an Eighth Amendment violation, courts must identify

22 specific conditions that fail to meet Eighth Amendment

23 requirements.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 n.3, 1247

24 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner,

25 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). An inmate must show that the

26 deprivation alleged was objectively “sufficiently serious” in

27 that the inmate was “incarcerated under conditions posing a

28 substantial risk of serious harm” and the defendant was

8

1 “deliberate[y] indifferen[t]” to the inmate’s health or safety.

2 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citations omitted). To adequately

3 allege deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must set forth facts

4 showing that a defendant “kn[e]w[] of and disregard[ed] an

5 excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Castro, 833 F.3d at

6 1068 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837).

7 The Supreme Court has “treated medical care claims

8 substantially the same as other conditions of confinement

9 violations.” Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th

10 Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 794 (2019). To establish a

11 constitutional claim based on inadequate medical care, a

12 plaintiff must show that the defendant was deliberately

13 indifferent to his serious medical needs. Gamble, 429 U.S. at

14 104. A “serious” medical need exists when failure to treat the

15 plaintiff could result in “further significant injury” or the

16 “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith,

17 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Gamble, 429 U.S. at

18 104), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller,

19 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

20 Deliberate indifference “may appear when prison officials

21 deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or

22 it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide

23 medical care.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.

24 2006) (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059). The defendant must

25 have purposefully ignored or failed to respond to the plaintiff’s

26 pain or medical needs. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. An

27 inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care, negligence,

28 a mere delay in medical care, or a difference of opinion over

9

1 proper medical treatment are all insufficient to violate the

2 Eighth Amendment. See Gamble, 429 U.S. at 105-07; Wilhelm v.

3 Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Sanchez v. Vild,

4 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).

5 Government officials “may not be held liable for the

6 unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of

7 respondeat superior.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Because a

8 supervisory official may be liable on the basis of her own acts

9 or omissions, however, a plaintiff can state a claim against her

10 based on knowledge of and acquiescence in the unconstitutional

11 conduct of her subordinates. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207. Thus, the

12 supervisor is liable if either she was personally involved in the

13 unconstitutional deprivation or a sufficient causal connection

14 existed between her wrongful conduct and the deprivation. Id. A

15 causal connection can be established by “setting in motion a

16 series of acts by others” or “knowingly refusing to terminate a

17 series of acts by others, which the supervisor knew or reasonably

18 should have known would cause others to inflict a constitutional

19 injury.” Id. at 1207-08 (alterations and citations omitted).

20 B. Analysis

21 Plaintiff alleges that in moving him to a cell without

22 railings despite being aware that medical staff had ordered that

23 he be housed in a handicap-accessible cell, Johnson and Patrick

24 were “negligent” (Compl. at 11) — a level of culpability that

25 falls short of deliberate indifference. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at

26 836-37. Nonetheless, his allegations that they knowingly

27 disregarded several status sheets calling for him to be housed in

28 a handicap-accessible cell and made dismissive comments are

10

1 likely sufficient to state a deliberate-indifference-to-medical-

2 needs claim. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1213–14 (9th

3 Cir. 2012) (holding that allegations that in moving plaintiff to

4 different bunk defendants ignored order requiring him to be

5 housed in lower bunk on ground floor were sufficient “to show

6 that [defendants] were deliberately indifferent”); Ramos v.

7 Monteiro, No. CV 06-0832-GAF (JTL)., 2009 WL 1370998, at *15

8 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (holding that allegations that plaintiff

9 was forced to sleep on floor after falling while climbing to

10 upper bunk when defendants had refused to assign lower bunk

11 despite knowing that doctor had ordered one were sufficient to

12 allege deliberate indifference).7

13 But Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that Milusnic and

14 Swain were liable for that purported constitutional violation.

15

7 Plaintiff’s allegations about his injuries are conclusory.

16

He alleges that he injured his “right wrist and forearm” when he

17 fell on the “razor edge” of the shower in his new cell the day

after he was transferred. (Compl. at 5, 11.) He also mentions

18 injuries to his “head and back” sustained during a subsequent fall.

(Suppl. Compl. at 2.) The only specific allegation he makes about

19 the “physical harm” he suffered (Compl. at 5) is that he sustained

“cutting and scraping” to his wrist and forearm (id. at 11). He

20

does not allege whether, to what extent, or for how long his

21 injuries caused him pain; whether they impaired his ability to do

anything; what treatment he received for them, if any; or how long

22 they lasted. Indeed, although he attached medical records

documenting his heart condition, he included none concerning the

23 injuries he claims he suffered here. To the extent he wishes to

recover damages for “[p]ain [and] [s]uffering” (id. at 7), he must

24

allege the harm he suffered. See Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623,

25 627-28 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that plaintiff in § 1983 action who

failed to allege more than de minimis physical injury could not

26 recover mental or emotional damages stemming from it); Ward v.

Oromde, No. CIV S-09-2542-CMK-P., 2011 WL 4056035, at *5 (E.D. Cal.

27 Sept. 12, 2011) (“[C]omplaints of bruising, swelling, scrapes, and

pain, without evidence of more serious injury, indicate de minimus

28

[sic] injury at best.”), aff’d, 519 F. App’x 470 (9th Cir. 2013).

11

1 See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (“Because vicarious liability is

2 inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead

3 that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s

4 own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”). He

5 resorts to conclusory allegations that Milusnic placed him in

6 “danger” and denied his “medical needs” by transferring him to

7 the non-handicap-accessible cell. (Compl. at 3.) But he does

8 not allege any facts to support an inference that Milusnic knew

9 about the transfer, let alone that he authorized it in conscious

10 disregard of his medical needs. Likewise, he does not allege any

11 facts to support an inference that Milusnic authorized Johnson to

12 speak loudly about his underlying conviction. (See id.) Indeed,

13 in the same breath that he faults Milusnic for placing him in

14 danger, he alleges that Johnson acted on his own and was

15 “unsupervised,” essentially acknowledging that Milusnic was not

16 personally involved. (Id.) And to the extent he means to

17 suggest that Milusnic permitted Johnson to act without

18 supervision, he fails to allege facts from which to infer that

19 Milusnic knew Johnson was not adequately supervised. (Id.)

20 Similarly, although he suggests that he asked Swain if he

21 could be “placed back into” his old cell (id. at 4), his

22 allegations are ambiguous as to when he made that request,

23 whether he explained that he had orders to be housed in a

24 handicap-accessible cell, and whether Swain understood that

25 rejecting his request would jeopardize his safety. And given

26 that Plaintiff claims that he fell and injured himself the day

27 after being transferred, it appears unlikely that he notified

28

12

1 Swain of the alleged danger before he was injured.8 At bottom,

2 Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations bear no resemblance to the

3 detailed factual allegations required to state a supervisory-

4 liability claim based on deliberate indifference. Compare Starr,

5 652 F.3d at 1208-12, 1216 (complaint providing “detailed factual

6 allegations” of misconduct, including dates on which Sheriff was

7 given notice of incidents, was sufficient to state deliberate-

8 indifference claim against him), with Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d

9 937, 941 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding supervisory-liability

10 allegations insufficient and explaining that decision in Starr

11 depended on “detailed factual allegations”).

12 Nor has he adequately alleged that Milusnic or Swain was

13 deliberately indifferent to the allegedly dangerous shower in his

14 new cell. (See Compl. at 3-4.) Plaintiff’s allegations about

15 the shower are largely conclusory. Although he alleges that it

16 had a “razor sharp edge” and that he hit that edge when he fell

17 on August 5, he does not explain the extent of the shower’s

18 damage or provide any other details about the protuberance to

19 show that it amounted to an unconstitutional condition of

20

21

8 Plaintiff also asserts that Swain violated “due process” by

22 “not providing an investigation” into “the violation” when it was

“brought to her attention.” (Compl. at 4.) His allegations do not

23 give rise to a colorable constitutional claim. See Ramirez v.

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that claim based

24 on processing of inmate appeals has no constitutional foundation

because inmates lack constitutional entitlement to specific

25

grievance procedure); see also Ross v. McGuinness, 471 F. App’x

26 608, 609 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that district court properly

granted summary judgment because allegations that defendant

27 violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights “in reviewing and

responding to [his] grievance about his medical care” did not give

28 rise to constitutional claim).

13

confinement. Further, he fails to allege that either Milusnic or

Swain was aware of that alleged danger before he was injured by

See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837 (to allege deliberate

4}}indifference, plaintiff must set forth facts showing that

5 defendant knew of, but disregarded, excessive risk to inmate

6}|}safety). Indeed, he does not allege that Milusnic knew about the

7 || exposed shower edge at all. (See Compl. at 4.)

8 Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Milusnic

9]/or Swain in an individual capacity. If he chooses to amend his

10 | pleadings, he must identify exactly what those Defendants’

personal involvement was in violating his constitutional rights.

12 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ KEK

13 If Plaintiff desires to pursue any of his claims, he is

14 |} ORDERED to file a first amended complaint within 28 days of the

date of this order, remedying the deficiencies discussed above.

16 The FAC should bear the docket number assigned to this case, be

17 labeled “First Amended Complaint,” and be complete in and of

itself, without reference to the Complaint, the Supplemental

19} Complaint, or any other pleading, attachment, or document.

Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to timely file a sufficient

21}| FAC, this action will likely be dismissed on the grounds set

22 || forth above and/or for failure to diligently prosecute.

23 | ‘ £1

24 || DATED: 12/02/2019

JOSEPHINE L. STATON

25 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

26 |} Presented by:

27 fru. hreabbat

J¢an Rosenbluth

28]/U.S. Magistrate Judge

14