Rushdan v. Davey et al.

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 29 ; ORDER for This Case to Proceed Only Against Defendant Casas for Use of Excessive Force, and Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants for Violation of Rule 18, Without Prejudice to Filing New Cases, and for Failure to State a Claim 28 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/19/2018: Defendants D. Davey, C/O Roque, C/O Geston, Sergeant Solis, Sergeant Arnett, Lieutenant T. Marsh, and C/O Geston are dismissed from this action for violation of Rule 18; This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings, including initiation of service of process. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

SALADIN RUSHDAN aka
ROBERT STANLEY WOODS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

1:16-cv-00988-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 29.)

vs.
D. DAVEY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED
ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT CASAS FOR
USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND
DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATION OF RULE
18, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FILING
NEW CASES, AND FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 28.)

18
19

Saladan Rushdan aka Robert Stanley Woods (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding

20

pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a

21

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On August 22, 2018, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending

23

that this action proceed only against defendant Casas for use of excessive force in violation of

24

the Eighth Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action

25

for violation of Rule 18 and failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 29.) On October 18, 2018, Plaintiff

26

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 34.)

27

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

28

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
1

1

including Plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported

2

by the record and proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

4

1.

5
6

2018, are ADOPTED in full;
2.

7
8

This action now proceeds only on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim and related
state law claims against defendant C/O Casas;

2.

9

All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this case for violation of Rule
18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without prejudice to filing new cases

10
11

The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August 22,

based on the dismissed claims, and for failure to state a claim;
3.

Defendants D. Davey, C/O Roque, C/O Geston, Sergeant Solis, Sergeant Arnett,

12

Lieutenant T. Marsh, and C/O Geston are dismissed from this action for violation

13

of Rule 18;

14

4.

Plaintiff’s claims for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

15

Amendment and for adverse conditions of confinement under the Eighth

16

Amendment are dismissed from this action for violation of Rule 18, without

17

prejudice to filing new cases based on the dismissed claims;

18

5.

Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Casas for retaliation in violation of the First

19

Amendment are dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a

20

claim; and

21

6.

22

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings,
including initiation of service of process.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

October 19, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2