Fields v. Patterson et al

Filing 23

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KEVIN E. FIELDS, 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, vs. P. PATTERSON, et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 17 1:10-cv-01700-LJO-GSA-PC 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 (Doc. 16.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 18 19 20 Kevin E. Fields (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 22 commencing this action on September 17, 2010. (Doc. 1.) The case now proceeds on the First 23 Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on May 31, 2013. (Doc. 16.) The First Amended 24 Complaint names Correctional Officer (C/O) Patterson, Sergeant (Sgt.) Molina, and Lieutenant 25 (Lt.) Finley, as defendants. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 26 The court screened the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 27 found that it states cognizable claims under ยง 1983 against defendant C/O Patterson for use of 28 excessive force; against defendants C/O Patterson and Sgt. Molina for retaliation; and against 1 1 defendants Sgt. Molina and Lt. Finley for failure to comply with state law. On February 5, 2 2014, the court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to either file a Second Amended Complaint 3 or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the 4 court. (Doc. 21.) On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the court that he is 5 willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court. (Doc. 22.) 6 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. This action proceed with the First Amended Complaint filed on May 31, 2013, 8 against defendant C/O Patterson for use of excessive force; against defendants 9 C/O Patterson and Sgt. Molina for retaliation; and against defendants Sgt. 10 Molina and Lt. Finley, for failure to comply with state law; 11 2. 12 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. 13 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 14 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 15 twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 16 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to 17 Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 18 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order. 19 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 24 25 26 February 21, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 6i0kij8d 27 28 2

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?