# (PC) Cragg v. Garland

> District Court, E.D. California · April 10, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10843260

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** April 10, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10843260

## Opinion text

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 EDWARD PAUL CRAGG, Case No. 1:24-cv-01124-KES-EPG (PC)

11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS
12 v.
(ECF NO. 1)
13 MERRICK GARLAND, et al.,
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
14 Defendants. FOURTEEN DAYS

15
16 Plaintiff Edward Paul Cragg is a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in
17 forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of his pretrial detention at Taft Community
18 Correctional Facility (Taft CCF). Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on
19 September 20, 2024, generally alleging that Taft’s policy regarding indigent supply kits
20 violates his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1).
21 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and issued a Screening Order on March 7,
22 2025. (ECF No. 6). The Court found that only Plaintiff’s claim for inadequate conditions of
23 confinement under the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Officer B.R. Juarez, Officer
24 A. Garcia, Sergeant S. Soliz, Defendant Brown, and Defendant Wilson should proceed past
25 screening. (Id. at 1–2).
26 The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to either:
27 a. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to proceed only on
the conditions of confinement claim against Defendants
28 B.R. Juarez, A. Garcia, S. Soliz, Brown, and Wilson;
1 b. File a First Amended Complaint; or
c. File a notice stating that he wants to stand on his complaint.
° at 13). On April 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed notice that he wishes “to proceed only on the
; conditions of confinement claim against Defendants B.R. Juarez, A. Garcia, S. Soliz, Brown,
‘ and Wilson.” (ECF No. 8).
° Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on
6 March 7, 2025 (ECF No. 6), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to
’ proceed only on the claim that the Court found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 8):
1. Itis RECOMMENDED that this case proceed on Plaintiffs on the conditions of
confinement claim against Defendants B.R. Juarez, A. Garcia, S. Soliz, Brown, and
10 Wilson, and all other claims and defendants shall be dismissed.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district
2 judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
fourteen 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.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 15
'6 pages including exhibits.
"7 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)).

21 IS SO ORDERED.
22
53 || Dated: _April 10, 2025 [spe hey —
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10843260. Public record. Not legal advice.