(PC) Gallegos v. North Kern County State Prison et al, No. 1:2007cv00257 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this 18 Action Proceed only against Defendants Singleton and Bicknell on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Excessive Force Claims, and all other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed; Objections, if any, Due in 30 Days signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 1/11/2010. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 2/16/2010. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Gallegos v. North Kern County State Prison et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST GALLEGOS, 12 13 14 1:07-cv-00257-AWI-SMS-PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS SINGLETON AND BICKNELL ON PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH AMENDMENT EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS, AND ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED vs. NORTH KERN COUNTY STATE PRISON, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS / 18 Plaintiff Ernest Gallegos (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case now proceeds on the second amended 20 complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 6, 2009. (Doc. 18.) The second amended complaint names the 21 Warden of North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”), MTA R. Palomino, Sergeant G. Becerra, Correctional 22 Officer (“C/O”) R. Singleton, C/O S. Pryor, and C/O A. Bicknell as defendants, and alleges claims of 23 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, harassment, and supervisory liability. 24 The Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 25 found that it states cognizable claims for relief under section 1983 against defendants Singleton and 26 Bicknell only, for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On December 22, 2009, 27 Plaintiff was given leave to either file a third amended complaint, or in the alternative, to notify the 28 Court that he does not wish to file a third amended complaint and instead wishes to proceed only on the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 claims identified by the Court as viable/cognizable in the Court’s order. (Doc. 19.) On January 8, 2010, 2 Plaintiff filed written notice to the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found 3 cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 20.) 4 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. 6 This action proceed only against C/O R. Singleton and C/O A. Bicknell, for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 7 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 8 3. Defendants MTA A. Palomino, Sergeant G. Becerra, C/O S. Pryor, and the Warden of 9 NKSP be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims under 10 § 1983 upon which relief may be granted against them; and 11 4. 12 Plaintiff's claims for harassment and supervisory liability be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983; and 13 5. 14 The Clerk be directed to reflect the dismissal of defendants Palomino, Becerra, Pryor, and the Warden of NKSP on the Court’s docket. 15 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days 17 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 18 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 19 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 20 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: icido3 January 11, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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.