Shehee v. Perez et al
Filing
46
ORDER ADOPTING 39 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 05/09/2018. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
Case No. 1:16-cv-01346-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS
PEREZ, et al.,
(ECF No. 39)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee (“Plaintiff”) is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se
18
and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The incidents at
19
issue in this litigation occurred while Plaintiff was housed in Coalinga State Hospital, where he
20
was civilly committed.
21
On December 4, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended
22
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated a cognizable claim for excessive
23
force in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant
24
Faith Perez for the purported two incidents which occurred in November 2014 and the one
25
incident on February 8, 2015, and a cognizable claim for failure to protect in violation of the Due
26
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Lain, but failed to state any
27
other cognizable claims against any other defendants. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a
28
second amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the
1
1
cognizable claims. (ECF No. 31.) Following several extensions of time, on February 23, 2018,
2
Plaintiff requested that the Court proceed on the claims against Defendants Perez and Lain. (ECF
3
No. 38.)
4
On February 28, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that:
5
(1) this action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on October 30, 2017, for
6
excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Perez and for failure
7
to protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Lain; and (2) all other
8
claims and Defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief
9
may be granted. (ECF No. 39.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and
10
contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.
11
at 12–13.)
Pursuant to two notices of changes in Plaintiff’s address, the findings and
12
13
recommendations were re-served on Plaintiff at his new address on March 8, 2018, and again on
14
April 5, 2018. (See ECF Nos. 41, 42, 43.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline in
15
which to do so has expired.
16
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
17
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
18
findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
19
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
20
1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 28, 2018, (ECF No. 39), are
21
adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed October 30,
22
23
2017, (ECF No. 30), for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
24
against Defendant Perez and for failure to protect in violation of the Fourteenth
25
Amendment against Defendant Lain;
3. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state
26
27
28
claims upon which relief may be granted; and
///
2
1
2
4. This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 9, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?