Reamel v. Harrington et al

Filing 15

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action proceed only against Defendants Gonzalez and Burgarin on Plaintiff's failure to protect claim re 12 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Reamel Curtis ; referred to Judge O'Neill,signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/28/16. Objections to F&R due by 10/24/2016 (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REAMEL CURTIS,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
vs.
KELLI HARRINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

1:14-cv-00553-LJO-EPG-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS
GONZALEZ AND MARTINEZ ON
PLAINTIFF=S DENIAL OF ACCESS TO
COURTS CLAIMS AND THAT ALL OTHER
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
DISMISSED
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN TWENTY
DAYS

18
19

Curtis Reamel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed the

21

Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On April 12, 2016, this Court issued a

22

screening order finding no cognizable claims and giving leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) On June

23

17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 12)

24

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

25

and found that it states cognizable claims against Defendants Gonzalez and Burgarin. (ECF

26

No. 13.) On September 9, 2016, Plaintiff was told to either notify the Court that he is willing to

27

proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court or to notify the Court that he does

28

not agree to proceed only on the cognizable claims, subject to a recommendation that the non1

1

cognizable claims be dismissed from the action. Id. On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a

2

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

3

Amendment claim for failure to protect against defendants Gonzalez and Burgarin. (ECF No.

4

14.)

5

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

6

1.

This action proceed only against defendants Gonzalez and Burgarin on
Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim;

7
8

2.

All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; and

9

3.

Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force be dismissed from this action based on
Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim.

10
11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

16

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

17

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 28, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2