(PC) Saldana v. Spearman et al, No. 2:2019cv00916 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/14/20 ORDERING the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a District Judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that Plaintiffs second amended complaint be dismissed; and this case be closed. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMUEL SALDANA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:19-cv-0916 CKD P v. ORDER AND M.E. SPEARMAN, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17 18 1983. On March 16, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint as the court is 19 required to due under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed with 20 leave to amend and plaintiff was given instructions as to the contents of his second amended 21 complaint. Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint which now must be screened. As plaintiff now knows, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a prisoner 22 23 has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which 24 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 25 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Although the facts alleged by plaintiff in claim 1 of his second amended complaint are 26 27 adequate to state a claim for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff only 28 ///// 1 1 identifies the person committing the alleged violation as “John Doe.” The court cannot allow the 2 case to proceed with only a “John Doe” defendant as the next step in this lawsuit would be to 3 serve process upon a defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 2. As there is no defendant upon whom process 4 can be served and no discernable method for identifying “John Doe,” this action cannot proceed 5 further. If, at some point, plaintiff learns the identity of “John Doe” he is free to file a second 6 action. 7 8 In all other respects, the second amended complaint does not assert even arguably actionable claims. 9 10 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case. 11 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed; and 13 2. This case be closed. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen after 16 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 17 the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 18 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 19 waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 20 1991). 21 Dated: April 14, 2020 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 sald0916.frs 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.
