The opinion
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, ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
12 v.
13 MERRICK GARLAND, et al., Doc. 10
14 Defendants.
15
16 Plaintiff Edward Paul Cragg is a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in
17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six
18 Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Docs. 1, 4. This matter was referred
19 to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On March 7, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and
21 found that, as to certain defendants, plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for conditions of
22 confinement under the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. 6 at 12. The screening order afforded
23 plaintiff the option to stand on his initial complaint, filed a first amended complaint, or notify
24 the Court that he wished to proceed only as to the conditions of confinement claim. Id. at 13.
25 On April 3, 2025, plaintiff filed a notice stating that he wished to proceed as to his conditions
26 of confinement claim. Doc. 8.
27 On April 10, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
28 recommending that, pursuant to the screening order, this action proceed as to plaintiff’s
1 Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against defendants B.R. Juarez, A.
2 Garcia, S. Soliz, Brown, and Wilson. Doc. 10. The findings and recommendations also
3 recommended that all other claims be dismissed. Id. The findings and recommendations were
4 served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within
5 fourteen days of service. Id. at 2. Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the deadline to do
6 so has passed.
7 As the screening order notes, while plaintiff is a federal pretrial detainee, the named
8 defendants on plaintiff’s cognizable conditions of confinement claim are employed by Taft
9 Community Correctional Facility (“Taft CCF”). See Doc. 6 at 6 n.1. Plaintiff’s complaint
10 alleges that his claims arise under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal
11 Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). To the extent plaintiff alleges that defendants were
12 acting under color of state law, plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement
13 claim may proceed pursuant to § 1983. To the extent plaintiff alleges a conditions of
14 confinement claim against defendants acting under color of federal law, pursuant to Bivens,
15 that claim is dismissed. See Goldey v. Fields, 606 U.S. 942 (2025) (reaffirming that Bivens
16 causes of action extend to three narrow contexts, none of which concerns conditions of
17 confinement).
18 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of
19 this case. After carefully reviewing the file, the Court adopts the findings and
20 recommendations in part, as set forth above.
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1 Accordingly:
2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 10, 2025, Doc. 10, are
3 adopted in part;
4 2. This case shall proceed on plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment conditions of
5 confinement claim under § 1983 against defendants B.R. Juarez, A. Garcia, S.
6 Soliz, Brown, and Wilson, to the extent plaintiff alleges those defendants are
7 acting under color of state law;
8 3. All other claims and defendants shall be dismissed; and
4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
10 proceedings.
11
12
Il rr Is SO ORDERED. □ (
14 AoA
Dated: _ September 21, 2025
15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28