(PC) Callins v. Stainer et al, No. 1:2017cv00840 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS; OBJECTIONS, If Any, Due Within Fourteen Days; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Assign District Judge - CASE ASSIGNED to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. New Case No. 1:17-cv-00840 DAD EPG (PC), signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/20/2018. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 CARLTON R. CALLINS, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:17-cv-00840-EPG (PC) 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED, EXCEPT FOR PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT C. KYT FOR VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND/OR ASSAULT; AGAINST DEFENDANTS GARRISON, ZAMORA, MANSON, PFEIFFER, AND DUNCAN FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT; AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS J. CERVANTES, J. GUZMAN, J. PENA, J. LOPEZ, I. PADILLA, AND J. ESCUTIA FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT 20 (ECF NOS. 1 & 18) 21 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 v. M. D. STAINER, et al., Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE Carlton Callins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 26 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on June 23, 2017. (ECF No. 1). 27 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 18). The Court found that Plaintiff stated 28 “cognizable claims against Defendant C. Kyt for violation of the Eighth amendment for sexual 1 1 harassment and/or assault; against Defendants Garrison, Zamora, Manson, Pfeiffer, and Duncan 2 for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants J. 3 Cervantes, J. Guzman, J. Pena, J. Lopez, I. Padilla, and J. Escutia for excessive force in 4 violation of the Eighth Amendment.” (Id. at 10). The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to 5 state any other cognizable claims. (Id). 6 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found 7 cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the 8 complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge 9 consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 12). On June 18, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court 10 that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order. (ECF 11 No. 19). 12 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 13 May 21, 2018 (ECF No. 18), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he is willing to 14 proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court (ECF No. 19), it is HEREBY 15 RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s claims 16 against Defendant C. Kyt for violation of the Eighth amendment for sexual harassment and/or 17 assault; against Defendants Garrison, Zamora, Manson, Pfeiffer, and Duncan for failure to 18 protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants J. Cervantes, J. Guzman, 19 J. Pena, J. Lopez, I. Padilla, and J. Escutia for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 20 Amendment. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 23 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 24 written objections with the Court. 25 Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 26 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 27 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 28 (9th Cir. 1991)). The document should be captioned “Objections to 2 1 2 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 20, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.