(PC) Juniel v. Clausen, et al., No. 1:2018cv01118 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That This Case Proceed Against Defendant J. Clausen for Use of Excessive Force and Defendant A. Randolph for Retaliation, and That All Other Claims be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/22/19. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD JUNIEL, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 1:18-cv-01118-LJO-GSA-PC J. CLAUSEN, et al., Defendants. 15 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANT J. CLAUSEN FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE AND DEFENDANT A. RANDOLPH FOR RETALIATION, AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 1.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 17 18 19 20 Richard Juniel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed the 22 Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On July 1, 2019, the court screened the 23 Complaint and issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint, or notify 24 the court that he is willing to proceed with the cognizable claims found by the court, against 25 defendant Clausen for use of excessive force and defendant Randolph for retaliation. (ECF No. 26 9.) 27 28 On July 18. 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice that he does not wish to amend the Complaint and is willing to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 10.) 1 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This case proceed against defendant Correctional Officer Clausen for use of 3 excessive force under the Eighth Amendment and against defendant Lieutenant 4 Randolph for retaliation under the First Amendment, for monetary damages only; 5 2. 6 7 All other claims be dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; 3. Plaintiff’s claims for tight handcuffs, unreasonable search and seizure, cell search, 8 strip search, deprivation of personal property, and declaratory relief be dismissed 9 from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983; and 10 4. 11 This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 14 (14) days from the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 15 written objections with the court. 16 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 17 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 18 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 19 (9th Cir. 1991)). Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 20 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 22, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.