(PC) Smith v. Parriot et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING 24 Findings and Recommendations in Full; ORDER for this Case to Proceed with First Amended Complaint Against Defendants A. Cantu, W. Gutierrez, and J. Mattingly for Use of Excessive Force and Dismissing all other Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/10/2020. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL
(Doc. No. 24.)

vs.

13
14

No. 1:19-cv-00286-NONE-GSA-PC

BRIAN L. PARRIOT, et al.,

ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED
WITH FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
AGAINST DEFENDANTS A. CANTU, W.
GUTIERREZ, AND J. MATTINGLY FOR
USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND
DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 22.)

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19

Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

20

forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was

21

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

22

Rule 302.

23

On September 22, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

24

recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Sgt. Andres

25

Cantu, C/O Wilfredo Gutierrez, and C/O James Mattingly for use of excessive force, and that

26

all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state

27

a claim. (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the

28

/////
1

1

findings and recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day time period has expired, and no

2

objections have been filed.

3

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

4

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

5

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

6

analysis.

7

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

8

1.

9

The findings and recommendations issued on September 22, 2020, are
ADOPTED in full;

10

2.

This action now proceeds on plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed on

11

September 10, 2020, against defendants Sgt. Andres Cantu, C/O Wilfredo

12

Gutierrez, and C/O James Mattingly for use of excessive force in violation of the

13

Eighth Amendment;

14

3.

Plaintiff’s claims challenging his guilty finding at the disciplinary hearing and

15

his loss of credits are dismissed from this § 1983 case as barred by the decisions

16

in Heck v. Humphrey and Edwards v. Balisok, without prejudice to his filing of a

17

petition for writ of habeas corpus;

18

4.

Plaintiff’s unrelated claims are dismissed from this action for violation of Rules

19

18(a) and 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without prejudice to

20

filing new cases addressing those claims;

21

5.

22

All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this case due to plaintiff’s
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983;

23

6.

Defendants Lieutenant (Lt.) Brian L. Parriot, Kern County Board of Supervisors,

24

Lisa S. Green (Kern County D.A.), John Doe (Secretary, CDCR), Kim Holland

25

(Warden, CCI), L. Gordon Isen (Deputy D.A., Kern County), J. Gutierrez

26

(Associate Warden), C/O Richard Cuellar, Patrick Matzen (Associate Warden),

27

Lt. David Crounse (Hearing Officer), Lt. T. Kephart, C/O J. Davis, C/O Jon

28

/////
2

1

Reimers, and Sgt. R. Cole are dismissed from this case for plaintiff’s failure to

2

state any claims against them under § 1983;

3

7.

Plaintiff’s claims for inadequate medical care, Fourth Amendment violations,

4

conspiracy, due process, false reports, and retaliation are dismissed from this

5

action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and; and

6

8.

7

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

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 10, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3