Burnett v. Sedillo et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
K. SEDILLO, et al.,
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
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN FOURTEEN
Carlos Burnett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
commencing this action on November 3, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff filed the Complaint
The court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that
it states cognizable excessive force claims against defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) G.
Meier, C/O R. Reynaga, Sergeant G. Garcia, C/O C. Huckleberry, and C/O Ryan Dyer, but no
other claims. (ECF No. 12.) On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff was granted leave to either file an
amended complaint or notify the court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found
cognizable by the court. (Id.) On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the
court that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable excessive force claims. (ECF No.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
This action proceed only against defendants Meier, Reynaga, Huckleberry,
Garcia, and Dyer, for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth
All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;
Plaintiff’s claims for violation of due process, failure to protect him, and
retaliation be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a
Defendants Sedillo, Davidson, and Nuckles be dismissed from this action for
Plaintiff’s failure to state any cognizable claims against them.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within
fourteen (14) days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.
Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394
(9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 25, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?