McCoy v. Holguin et al

Filing 95

ORDER ADOPTING 93 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIM, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/19/18. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAKEITH L. MCCOY,

12
13
14

No. 1:15-cv-00768-DAD-MJS

Plaintiffs,
v.
A. HOLGUIN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIM
(Doc. No. 93.)

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff Lakeith McCoy is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

On November 19, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second

21

amended complaint (Doc. No. 15) and found that plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment

22

excessive force claims against defendants Casillas, Holguin, Moore, King, Lomas, Gonzales, A.

23

Martinez, Delgado, Barron, Montanez, Mayfield, and Moreno, and cognizable failure to intervene

24

claims against defendants Arellano, Deluna, C. Martinez, Bennet, Holland, Kilmer, Lomas, and

25

Santa Maria. (Doc. No. 17.) However, the magistrate judge dismissed plaintiff’s claim for

26

injunctive relief.

27
28

On February 23, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff’s second
amended complaint, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d
1

1

500 (9th Cir. 2017), had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims

2

with prejudice in screening prisoner complaints even if a plaintiff has consented to magistrate

3

judge jurisdiction, as plaintiff did here, where all defendants, including those not yet appearing in

4

the action, have not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 93.) Concurrently, the

5

magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s claims

6

previously found to be non-cognizable in the initial screening order be dismissed. (Id.) The

7

parties were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id.)

8

The parties did not file any objections, and the time in which to do so has now expired.

9

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the

10

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of the case. The undersigned concludes the findings

11

and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

12
13
14

Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 23, 2018 (Doc. No. 93) are
adopted in full;

15

2. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is dismissed with prejudice;

16

3. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against

17

defendants Casillas, Holguin, Moore, King, Lomas, Gonzales, A. Martinez, Delgado,

18

Barron, Montanez, Mayfield and Moreno and his failure to intervene claims against

19

defendants Arellano, Deluna, C. Martinez, Bennett, Holland, Kilmer, Lomas and Santa

20

Marias.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:

March 19, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2