(PC) Cloud v. Cox et al, No. 2:2019cv02593 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 4/14/2020 RECOMMENDING Plaintiff's claims against defendants Hurlbert, Glenn, Lucero, Cox, Cea, Anaya, Martinez, Moss, Abamonga, Villalobos, Hutchinson, and Watkins be dismissed. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 30 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOEL JAMES CLOUD, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-2593 WBS DB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COX, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On screening plaintiff’s complaint, this court: (1) found 19 plaintiff stated cognizable claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment 20 against defendants Cox and Van Raiden; (2) dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendants 21 Hurlbert, Glenn, Lucero, Cox, Cea, Anaya, Martinez, Moss, Abamonga, Villalobos, Hutchinson, 22 and Watkins with leave to amend; and (3) recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against 23 defendants Espinoza, Quam, and Kessler. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was given thirty days to either 24 file an amended complaint or inform the court that he wished to proceed on his Eighth 25 Amendment claims against defendants Cox and Van Raiden. 26 In a document filed here on February 10, 2020, plaintiff stated that he wishes to proceed 27 on his excessive force claim against defendants Cox and Van Raiden and understands that 28 defendant Rodriguez will be dismissed from this action. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff then stated 1 1 “objections.” He argued that officers used unnecessary force in the cell extraction. In response, 2 this court noted that plaintiff appeared to be attempting to state a different claim than that 3 originally stated in his complaint. In an order filed February 14, this court provided plaintiff an 4 additional thirty days to file any amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.) 5 Thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, 6 and for the reasons set out in this court’s January 28 and February 14 orders, this case will 7 proceed on plaintiff’s excessive force claims against defendants Cox and Van Raiden. This court 8 will order service of the complaint on Cox and Van Raiden by separate order. Here, this court 9 will recommend all other remaining claims and defendants be dismissed. 10 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims 11 against defendants Hurlbert, Glenn, Lucero, Cox, Cea, Anaya, Martinez, Moss, Abamonga, 12 Villalobos, Hutchinson, and Watkins be dismissed. 13 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after 15 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 16 the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 17 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 18 may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 19 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 Dated: April 14, 2020 21 22 23 24 25 DLB:9 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/clou2593.scrn fr2 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.
