Sansone v. Thomas

Filing 32

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS THOMAS AND JOHN DOE #1 FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/5/2016. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 2/29/2016.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8
9

RICHARD SANSONE,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14

vs.
J. C. THOMAS,
Defendant.

1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS
THOMAS AND JOHN DOE #1 FOR USE OF
EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND THAT ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
DISMISSED
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS

15

Richard Sansone (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

16

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The case now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint

17

filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2014. (ECF No. 27.) The First Amended Complaint names

18

Correctional Officer J. C. Thomas, Jane Doe #1 (dental assistant), John Doe #1 (correctional

19

officer), John Doe #2 (correctional sergeant), John Doe #3 (appeals coordinator) and John Doe

20

#4 (warden) as defendants, and alleges medical claims and claims for excessive force under the

21

Eighth Amendment, and violations of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

22

The Court screened Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A

23

and found that it states cognizable claims for use of excessive force against defendants J. C.

24

Thomas and John Doe #1. (ECF No. 30.) On January 22, 2016, Plaintiff was granted leave to

25

either file a Second Amended Complaint or notify the Court that he is willing to proceed only

26

on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (Id.) On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice

27

informing the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable Eighth Amendment

28

excessive force claims against defendants Thomas and John Doe #1. (ECF No. 31.)
1

1

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

2

1.

This action proceed only against defendants Correctional Officers J. C. Thomas

3

and John Doe #1, on Plaintiff’s claims for use of excessive force in violation of

4

the Eighth Amendment;

5

2.

All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;

6

3.

Plaintiff’s claims for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment and

7

for violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment be dismissed from

8

this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

9

granted under § 1983;

10

4.

Defendants Jane Doe #1 (dental assistant), John Doe #2 (correctional sergeant),

11

John Doe #3 (appeals coordinator) and John Doe #4 (warden) be dismissed from

12

this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them under §

13

1983.

14

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

15

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within

16

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may

17

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to

18

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Any reply to the objections shall be

19

served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that

20

failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

21

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

22

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 5, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2