Hill v. Clark et al
Filing
16
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That This Action Proceed Only Against Defendants Clark and Rivas on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claims, and All Remaining Claims and Defendants Be Dismissed 1 Objections, If Any, Due Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/11/13. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHNATHAN HILL,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
vs.
J. CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.
16
1:13-cv-00386-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS
CLARK AND RIVAS ON PLAINTIFF’S
EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS, AND ALL
REMAINING CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
BE DISMISSED
(Doc. 1.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS
17
18
19
Johnathan Hill (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
20
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The case now proceeds on the original
21
Complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 18, 2013. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint names Correctional
22
Officer (C/O) J. Clark, C/O A. Rivas, C/O L. Aragon; C/O A. Tirado; C/O J. Magana, and
23
Sergeant W. Rasley as defendants, and alleges claims for excessive force and failure to protect
24
under the Eighth Amendment.
25
The court screened Plaintiff=s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and found that
26
it states cognizable claims for relief under § 1983 against defendant C/O J. Clark for use of
27
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant C/O A. Rivas for
28
1
1
failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillian, 503
2
U.S. 1, 5 (1992); Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002); Farmer v. Brennan, 511
3
U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005).
4
September 16, 2013, Plaintiff was given leave to either file an amended complaint, or in the
5
alternative, to notify the court that he does not wish to file an amended complaint and instead
6
wishes to proceed only on the claims identified by the court as viable/cognizable in the court=s
7
order. (Doc. 7.) On September 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed written notice to the court that he
8
wished to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court. (Doc. 8.)
On
9
Based on Plaintiff’s September 27, 2013 notice, the court entered findings and
10
recommendations, recommending that this case proceed on the original Complaint against
11
defendants Rivas and Clark, and that all other defendants be dismissed. (Doc. 10.) On
12
November 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, objecting
13
to the recommendation to dismiss all defendants except defendants Rivas and Clark. (Doc. 12.)
14
Based on Plaintiff’s objections, the court vacated the findings and recommendations and
15
Plaintiff was again given leave to either file an amended complaint, or in the alternative, to
16
notify the court that he does not wish to file an amended complaint and instead wishes to
17
proceed only on the claims identified by the court as viable/cognizable in the court=s order.
18
(Doc. 13.) On November 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed written notice to the court that he wishes to
19
proceed only against defendants Rivas and Clark.
20
21
22
Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s November 25, 2013 notice, the court HEREBY
RECOMMENDS that:
1.
This action proceed only against defendants C/O J. Clark for use of excessive
23
force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and C/O A. Rivas for failure to
24
protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
25
2.
All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;
26
3.
Defendants C/O L. Aragon; C/O A. Tirado; C/O J. Magana, Sergeant W. Rasley,
27
and the Doe Defendants be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure
28
to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them under § 1983.
2
1
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
2
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within
3
thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may
4
file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to
5
Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
6
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order.
7
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
12
13
14
December 11, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
6i0kij8d
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?