(PC) Williams v. Gamboa et al, No. 1:2021cv00155 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/13/2021. Defendant M. Gamboa TERMINATED. (Rivera, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. M. GAMBOA, et al., 15 No. 1:21-cv-00155-NONE-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. Nos. 1, 10, 12) Defendants. 16 John Williams (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 17 18 action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 8, 2021, plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint against defendants. (Doc. No. 20 21 1.) On April 12, 2021, plaintiff provided the court with notice that he was electing to proceed 22 only on the claims found cognizable by the court’s April 1, 2021 screening order. (Doc No. 11.) 23 On April 14, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge therefore entered findings and 24 recommendations, recommending “that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for 25 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Oaks; Plaintiff’s Eighth 26 Amendment failure to protect claim against defendant Pascoe; Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 27 sexual assault claim against defendant Oaks; and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for 28 ///// 1 1 deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against defendants Oaks, Pascoe, Riddle, 2 Beer, Garcia, and Cubos.” (Doc. No. 12 at 2–3) (footnote omitted.) 3 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 4 recommendations. On April 26, 2021, plaintiff filed his objections. (Doc. No. 15.) Specifically, 5 plaintiff objected to the recommendation that his excessive force claim against defendant Pascoe 6 be dismissed. Id. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 8 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 9 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Plaintiff’s objection to the recommended dismissal of the excessive force claim against defendant 11 Pascoe is without merit. 12 An excessive force claim requires that a defendant actually use force against the plaintiff. 13 See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992). Here, plaintiff has not alleged that defendant 14 Pascoe made forceful contact with him; instead, plaintiff describes defendant Pascoe as a 15 “lookout” who failed to intervene when defendant Oaks unlawfully struck the plaintiff. As such, 16 plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient only for a failure to protect claim against defendant Pascoe.1 17 Accordingly, 18 1. 19 The findings and recommendations issued on April 14, 2021, (Doc. No. 12,) are adopted in full; 20 2. All claims and defendants are dismissed,2 except for plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 21 excessive force claim against defendant Oaks; plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 22 failure to protect claim against defendant Pascoe; plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 23 sexual assault claim against defendant Oaks; and plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 24 claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against defendants 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff also objects to the dismissal of his failure to protect claim against defendant Pascoe, but the magistrate judge did not recommend that this claim be dismissed. The court agrees that the failure to protect claim against defendant Pascoe is sufficiently pled at this stage. Plaintiff’s cover-up claim is dismissed without prejudice. All other claims that are being dismissed are dismissed with prejudice. 2 2 1 2 Oaks, Pascoe, Riddle, Beer, Garcia, and Cubos; and 3. from this action on the court’s docket. 3 4 5 6 The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendant M. Gamboa IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 13, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
