(PC) Beckett v. Scalia, et al., No. 1:2020cv01468 - Document 34 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to dismiss certain claims and defendants following screening of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 24 signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 11/30/2023. Referred to Judge Jennifer L. Thurston; Objections to F&R due within 14-Days.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW H. BECKETT, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 SCALIA, et al., 15 Defendants. Case No. 1:20-cv-01468-JLT-CDB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOLLOWING SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff Matthew H. Beckett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 On October 31, 2023, the Court issued its Third Screening Order. (Doc. 29.) The Court 24 found Plaintiff’s second amended complaint plausibly alleged Eighth Amendment excessive force 25 claims against Defendants Scalia, Madrigal and Hernandez (Claim One), Eighth Amendment 26 failure to protect/failure to intervene claims against Defendant Hackworth (Claim One), and 27 Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants 28 Scalia, Madrigal, Hernandez and Hackworth (Claim Four); however, the Court also held the 1 second amended complaint failed to allege any other cognizable claim against any other named 2 Defendant. (Id. at 4-17.) Plaintiff was ordered to select one of the following three options within 3 21 days of the date of service of the order: (1) to notify the Court in writing that he does not wish 4 to file a third amended complaint and he is willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment 5 excessive force claims against Defendants Scalia, Madrigal and Hernandez, Eighth Amendment 6 failure to protect/failure to intervene claims against Defendant Hackworth, and Eighth 7 Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Scalia, 8 Madrigal, Hernandez and Hackworth with the remaining claims against any other defendants to 9 be dismissed; or (2) to file a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the 10 11 12 Court in the screening order; or (3) to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 18-19.) On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating he was willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 32.) 13 II. 14 For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Third Screening Order, the Court 15 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDS that: 16 1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 17 against Defendants Scalia, Madrigal and Hernandez (Claim One); Eighth Amendment 18 failure to protect/failure to intervene claims against Defendant Hackworth (Claim 19 One); and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims 20 against Defendants Scalia, Madrigal, Hernandez and Hackworth (Claim Four), 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 22 2. Defendant L. Hurtado be DISMISSED from this action; and 23 3. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint be DISMISSED. 24 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 25 this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 26 Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 27 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 28 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 2 1 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 2 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: November 30, 2023 ___________________ _ 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.
