(PC)Sutherland v. Yates et al, No. 1:2009cv02152 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/16/2011 adopting 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ON THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS FERNANDO AND JERICOFF FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE AND A GAINST DEFENDANT YATES FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF, AND ON PLAINTIFF'S RELATED STATE TORT CLAIMS, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and ORDER REFERRING CASE back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(PC)Sutherland v. Yates et al Doc. 20 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 WILLIAM SUTHERLAND, 6 7 8 Plaintiff, vs. A. FERNANDO, et al., 9 10 11 12 13 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 17.) ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ON THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS FERNANDO AND JERICOFF FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE AND AGAINST DEFENDANT YATES FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF, AND ON PLAINTIFF'S RELATED STATE TORT CLAIMS, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Defendants. ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 14 15 1:09-cv-02152-LJO-GSA-PC _____________________________/ William Sutherland (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 17 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On April 28, 2011, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 20 this action proceed with the First Amended Complaint filed on December 6, 2010, on Plaintiff’s 21 Eighth Amendment claims found cognizable by the Court against defendants C/O A. Fernando and 22 C/O M. Jericoff for use of excessive force and against defendant Warden James Yates for failure to 23 protect Plaintiff; and on Plaintiff’s related state tort claims; and that all remaining claims and 24 defendants be dismissed, based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff was 25 provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. 26 To date, plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and 27 recommendations. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, 1 2 this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 5 1. 6 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 28, 2011, are ADOPTED in full; 7 2. This action now PROCEEDS with the First Amended Complaint filed on 8 December 6, 2010, on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims found 9 cognizable by the Court against defendants C/O A. Fernando and C/O M. 10 Jericoff for use of excessive force and against defendant Warden James 11 Yates for failure to protect Plaintiff; and on Plaintiff’s related state tort 12 claims; 13 3. 14 All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; 15 4. Plaintiff's claims for conspiracy, due process violations, and violations of the 16 Penal Code are DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to 17 state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; 18 5. Defendant Lieutenant R. Lantz is DISMISSED from this action based on 19 Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted 20 against him under § 1983; and 21 6 22 This action is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: b9ed48 June 16, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.