Furnace v. Cope et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants;This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with this order, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/1/2018. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD FURNACE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 Case No. 1:16-cv-00420-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS B. COPE, et al., (ECF No. 30) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Edward Furnace (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 14, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations finding that 21 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Villa for 22 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 30.) The Magistrate Judge 23 recommended that all other claims, including Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief, and all other 24 defendants, be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which 25 relief may be granted. Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 26 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 27 service. (Id.) Following an extension of time, Plaintiff’s objections were filed on June 20, 2018. 28 (ECF No. 33.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 3 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 As indicated, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections, which are extensive. 5 Generally, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by not finding that Defendants engaged 6 in a conspiracy to retaliate against Plaintiff, and that there were no legitimate penological 7 purposes behind their actions. As discussed throughout the findings and recommendations, 8 Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations regarding Defendants’ motivations, knowledge of Plaintiff’s 9 prior or ongoing litigation, or meeting of the minds to violate Plaintiff’s rights are insufficient to 10 state a cognizable claim. In addition, Plaintiff has provided no argument justifying joinder of the 11 cognizable excessive force claim with the other unrelated allegations in this action, aside the bare 12 assertion that it was part of a series of acts committed against him in retaliation for his First 13 Amendment conduct. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 14, 2018, (ECF. No. 30), are 16 17 adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant 18 19 Villa for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 3. Plaintiff’s remaining claims, including Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief, and all 20 other defendants are dismissed from this action, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s 21 failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted; and 22 4. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with 23 this order. 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ October 1, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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?