(PC) Lewis v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabiliation et al, No. 1:2017cv01064 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That All Claims and Defendants be Dismissed, Except for Plaintiff's Claims for Excessive Force in Violation of the Eighth Amendment Against Defendants B. Nickell, J. Ramirez and O. Delgado, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/22/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 TONY R. LEWIS, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILIATION, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:17-cv-01064-DAD-EPG (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED, EXCEPT FOR PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS B. NICKELL, J. RAMIREZ AND O. DELGADO (ECF NOS. 1 & 9) 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 Tony R. Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed the 20 complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1). 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 9). The Court found that the complaint stated 22 cognizable claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants 23 B. Nickell, J. Ramirez and O. Delgado. (Id. at 10). The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to 24 state any other cognizable claims. (Id). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint 25 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims for 26 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants B. Nickell, J. 27 Ramirez and O. Delgado, amending the complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the 28 Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening 1 1 order. (Id. at 11). On February 7, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court that he is willing to 2 proceed only on the claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 3 defendants B. Nickell, J. Ramirez and O. Delgado. (ECF No. 10). 4 Accordingly, for the reasons laid out in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 5 January 2, 2018 (ECF No. 9), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he is willing to 6 proceed only on the claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 7 defendants B. Nickell, J. Ramirez and O. Delgado (ECF No. 10), 8 RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s claims 9 for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants B. Nickell, J. 10 it is HEREBY Ramirez and O. Delgado. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 13 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 14 written objections with the Court. 15 Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 16 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 17 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 18 (9th Cir. 1991)). The document should be captioned “Objections to 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 22, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2