(PC) Tracye B. Washington v. Stark et al, No. 1:2018cv00564 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this Action Proceed on Plaintiff's Excessive Force Claim Against Defendants Hicks and Rocha and Dismissing all other Claims and Defendants signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/4/2018. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within Fourteen Days. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 E. STARK, et.al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-00564-LJO-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THIS ACTION PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF’S EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS HICKS AND ROCHA AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS [ECF Nos. 1, 9, 12] Plaintiff Tracye Benard Washington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On May 15, 2018, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it stated a 20 cognizable claim for excessive force against Defendants Hicks and Rocha. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff 21 was granted an opportunity to amend his complaint, or notify the Court that he is agreeable to 22 proceeding only on the excessive force identified as cognizable. (Id.) 23 24 On May 31, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wished to proceed only on the excessive force and dismiss all other claims. (ECF No. 12.) 25 As a result, the Court will recommend that this action only proceed on the claim identified above, 26 and all other claims and Defendants be dismissed for the reasons stated in the Court’s May 15, 2018, 27 screening order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. 28 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 1 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants David Hicks and Hipolito Rocha for excessive force; and 3 2. 4 All other claims and Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 5 relief could be granted, consistent with the Court’s May 15, 2018, screening order, ECF 6 No. 9. 7 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within fourteen (14) days 9 after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 10 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff 11 is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 12 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 13 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: 17 June 4, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.