(PC) Juniel v. Clausen, et al., No. 1:2018cv01118 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER for This Case to Proceed Against Defendant J. Clausen for Use of Excessive Force and Defendant A. Randolph for Retaliation, and Dismissing All Other Claims for Failure to State a Claim, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/22/19. (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 13 14 1:18-cv-01118-LJO-GSA-PC v. J. CLAUSEN, et al., Defendants. 15 16 17 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 13.) ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANT J. CLAUSEN FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE AND DEFENDANT A. RANDOLPH FOR RETALIATION, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 1.) 18 19 Richard Juniel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On July 22, 2019, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that 23 this action proceed only against defendant J. Clausen for use of excessive force and defendant A. 24 Randolph for retaliation, and that all other claims be dismissed from this action based on 25 Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which to 26 file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The time for filing objections has 27 passed, and Plaintiff has not filed objections or any other response to the findings and 28 recommendations. 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, the 3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 5 1. 6 7 The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on July 22, 2019, are ADOPTED in full; 2. This action now proceeds with Plaintiff's original Complaint, filed on August 20, 8 2018, against defendant J. Clausen for use of excessive force in violation of the 9 Eighth Amendment and defendant A. Randolph for retaliation in violation of the 10 11 First Amendment; 3. 12 13 All other claims are dismissed from this case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; 4. Plaintiff’s claims for tight handcuffs, unreasonable cell search under the Fourth 14 Amendment, unreasonable strip search under the Fourth Amendment, due process 15 concerning loss of personal property, and declaratory relief are dismissed from 16 this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983; and 17 5. 18 This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process. 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ August 22, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.