Burnett v. Sedillo et al

Filing 14

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action Proceed Only Against Defendants Meier, Reynaga, Huckleberry, Garcia, and Dyer for Use of Excessive Force, and that All Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/25/2017. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CARLOS BURNETT,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.
K. SEDILLO, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

1:16-cv-01672-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS
MEIER, REYNAGA, HUCKLEBERRY,
GARCIA, AND DYER FOR USE OF
EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND THAT ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
DISMISSED
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS

16
17
18

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

19

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

commencing this action on November 3, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff filed the Complaint

21

The court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that

22

it states cognizable excessive force claims against defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) G.

23

Meier, C/O R. Reynaga, Sergeant G. Garcia, C/O C. Huckleberry, and C/O Ryan Dyer, but no

24

other claims. (ECF No. 12.) On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff was granted leave to either file an

25

amended complaint or notify the court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found

26

cognizable by the court. (Id.) On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the

27

court that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable excessive force claims. (ECF No.

28

13.)
1

1

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

2

1.

This action proceed only against defendants Meier, Reynaga, Huckleberry,

3

Garcia, and Dyer, for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth

4

Amendment;

5

2.

All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;

6

3.

Plaintiff’s claims for violation of due process, failure to protect him, and

7

retaliation be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a

8

claim; and

9

4.

Defendants Sedillo, Davidson, and Nuckles be dismissed from this action for
Plaintiff’s failure to state any cognizable claims against them.

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

fourteen (14) days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff

14

may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

15

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

16

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.

17

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

18

(9th Cir. 1991)).

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 25, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2