(PC) McCoy v. Holguin et al, No. 1:2015cv00768 - Document 95 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 93 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIM, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/19/18. (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAKEITH L. MCCOY, 12 13 14 No. 1:15-cv-00768-DAD-MJS Plaintiffs, v. A. HOLGUIN, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIM (Doc. No. 93.) 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Lakeith McCoy is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On November 19, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second 21 amended complaint (Doc. No. 15) and found that plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment 22 excessive force claims against defendants Casillas, Holguin, Moore, King, Lomas, Gonzales, A. 23 Martinez, Delgado, Barron, Montanez, Mayfield, and Moreno, and cognizable failure to intervene 24 claims against defendants Arellano, Deluna, C. Martinez, Bennet, Holland, Kilmer, Lomas, and 25 Santa Maria. (Doc. No. 17.) However, the magistrate judge dismissed plaintiff’s claim for 26 injunctive relief. 27 28 On February 23, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 1 1 500 (9th Cir. 2017), had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims 2 with prejudice in screening prisoner complaints even if a plaintiff has consented to magistrate 3 judge jurisdiction, as plaintiff did here, where all defendants, including those not yet appearing in 4 the action, have not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 93.) Concurrently, the 5 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s claims 6 previously found to be non-cognizable in the initial screening order be dismissed. (Id.) The 7 parties were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id.) 8 The parties did not file any objections, and the time in which to do so has now expired. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 10 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of the case. The undersigned concludes the findings 11 and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 13 14 Accordingly: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 23, 2018 (Doc. No. 93) are adopted in full; 15 2. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is dismissed with prejudice; 16 3. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against 17 defendants Casillas, Holguin, Moore, King, Lomas, Gonzales, A. Martinez, Delgado, 18 Barron, Montanez, Mayfield and Moreno and his failure to intervene claims against 19 defendants Arellano, Deluna, C. Martinez, Bennett, Holland, Kilmer, Lomas and Santa 20 Marias. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: March 19, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2