(PC) Monson v. Unknown Floor Officers, No. 1:2017cv00395 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER for this Action to Proceed Against Defendants Unknown Officer 1 and Unknown Officer 2 for Failure to Protect in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and DISMISSING all other Claims and Defendants with Prejudice signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/17/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TRENELL MONSON, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 Case No. 1:17-cv-00395-AWI-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF NOS. 10 & 11) UNKNOWN FLOOR OFFICERS, Defendants. 12 13 14 ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS UNKNOWN OFFICER 1 AND UNKNOWN OFFICER 2 FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE 15 16 Trenell Monson (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee being held at Fresno County Jail. He 17 is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which was 19 filed on August 28, 2017. (ECF No. 10). The matter was referred to a United States magistrate 20 judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On September 28, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 22 recommendations, recommending that this action proceed against defendants Unknown Officer 23 1 and Unknown Officer 2 on Plaintiff’s claim for failure to protect in violation of the 24 Fourteenth Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed with prejudice. 25 (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 26 recommendations within twenty-one days. 27 respond to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff did not file objections or otherwise 28 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 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 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 6 1. 7 8 28, 2017, are ADOPTED in full; 2. 10 claim for failure to protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. 12 13 This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) against defendants Unknown Officer 1 and Unknown Officer 2 on Plaintiff’s 9 11 The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action, with prejudice; and 5. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 17, 2017 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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.