Fields v. Patterson et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That This Action Proceed on the First Amended Complaint 16 Against Defendants C/O Patterson and Sgt. Molina for Retaliation; and Against Defendants Sgt. Molina and LT. Finley, for Failure to Comply With State Law; and that All Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed from this Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/21/14. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections, If Any, Due Within Twenty Days. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KEVIN E. FIELDS,
P. PATTERSON, et al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ON THE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT C/O
PATTERSON FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE
FORCE; AGAINST DEFENDANTS C/O
PATTERSON AND SGT. MOLINA FOR
RETALIATION; AND AGAINST
DEFENDANTS SGT. MOLINA AND LT.
FINLEY, FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH STATE LAW; AND THAT ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
Kevin E. Fields (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.
commencing this action on September 17, 2010. (Doc. 1.) The case now proceeds on the First
Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on May 31, 2013. (Doc. 16.) The First Amended
Complaint names Correctional Officer (C/O) Patterson, Sergeant (Sgt.) Molina, and Lieutenant
(Lt.) Finley, as defendants.
Plaintiff filed the Complaint
The court screened the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and
found that it states cognizable claims under § 1983 against defendant C/O Patterson for use of
excessive force; against defendants C/O Patterson and Sgt. Molina for retaliation; and against
defendants Sgt. Molina and Lt. Finley for failure to comply with state law. On February 5,
2014, the court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to either file a Second Amended Complaint
or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the
court. (Doc. 21.) On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the court that he is
willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court. (Doc. 22.)
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
This action proceed with the First Amended Complaint filed on May 31, 2013,
against defendant C/O Patterson for use of excessive force; against defendants
C/O Patterson and Sgt. Molina for retaliation; and against defendants Sgt.
Molina and Lt. Finley, for failure to comply with state law;
All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on
Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within
twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may
file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to
Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order.
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 21, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?