(PC) Hernandez v. Jordan et al, No. 1:2009cv00268 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS;ORDER referring this matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 01/19/2010. (Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Hernandez v. Jordan et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 U N IT ED ST A T ES D IST RICT COU RT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANGEL H. HERNANDEZ, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00268-LJO-SMS PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE v. CHRIS JORDAN, et al., 13 Defendants. (Docs. 8 and 10) / 14 15 Plaintiff Angel H. Hernandez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 16 this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law on February 11, 2009. The matter 17 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 18 Rule 72-302. 19 On November 25, 2009, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and 20 issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and defendants. 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff was given thirty days within which to file an Objection, if any. No 22 Objection was filed. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 24 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 25 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. 28 The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 25, 2009, is adopted in full; /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2. This action shall proceed as one for money damages on Plaintiff’s amended 2 complaint against Defendants Costner and Doe 1 for use of excessive force, in 3 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for negligence under California law; 4 3. Plaintiff’s official capacity claims are dismissed as redundant of his municipal 5 liability claims, and his supervisory liability and municipal liability claims are 6 dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 7 4. Plaintiff’s section 1981 claim is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 8 5. Plaintiff’s negligence claims against Defendants Garcia, Costner, Tolbert, 9 Henderson, Vento, Taser International, Inc., and Kings County are dismissed, with 10 prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 11 6. Plaintiff’s professional negligence claims against medical staff at the jail are 12 dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, are 13 dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 18; 14 7. 15 Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are dismissed for failure to state a claim; 16 8. Defendants Jordan, the Board of Supervisors for Kings County, Tolbert, Garcia, 17 Henderson, Vento, Does 1-25, Kings County, the Mayor of Kings County, Taser 18 International, Inc., and jail medical staff are dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to 19 state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them; and 20 9. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 January 19, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
