(PC) Martinez v. Navarro, et al.

Filing 22

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action proceed only on Plaintiff's claims against Defendants C/O E. Mares, Sergeant M. Navarro, C/O Cruz and C/O Navarro for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, for money damages only re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint ; referred to Judge Unassigned DJ,signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/10/2020. (Objections to F&R due within 14-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE ANTONIO MARTINEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
M. NAVARRO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

1:19-cv-00378-NONE-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS
ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST
DEFENDANTS SERGEANT M.
NAVARRO, C/O NAVARRO, C/O E.
MARES, AND C/O CRUZ, FOR USE OF
EXCESSIVE FORCE UNDER THE
EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT
ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAY

18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Jose Antonio Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

22

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff

23

filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint names as defendants

24

Sergeant M. Navarro, Correctional Officer (C/O) Navarro, C/O E. Mares, C/O Cruz, Sergeant

25

Kellog, Sellers (Psych. Tech.), Stamphill (Psych. Tech.), Kenneth Landry (Psych. Tech.), and

26

Robin McConnell (Physician’s Assistant) (collectively, “Defendants”).and brings claims for

27

excessive force, violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, adverse conditions of confinement, and

28

state law claims.
1

1

II.

FINDINGS

2

The court screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and found that it states

3

cognizable claims under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants C/O E. Mares, Sergeant M.

4

Navarro, C/O Cruz, and C/O Navarro for use of excessive force. The court also found that

5

Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief if he prevails in this case and is confined to seeking

6

money damages for the violations of his federal rights. On August 10, 2020, the court issued a

7

screening order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file an amended complaint, or (2) notify the court

8

that he is willing to proceed only with the excessive force claims found cognizable by the court.

9

(ECF No. 17.)

10

On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with

11

the claims found cognizable by the court and dismiss all other claims and defendants. (ECF No.

12

20.)

13

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

14

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

15

1.

This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims against defendants C/O E. Mares,

16

Sergeant M. Navarro, C/O Cruz, and C/O Navarro.for use of excessive force in

17

violation of the Eighth Amendment, for money damages only;

18

2.

All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;

19

3.

Plaintiff’s claims for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, adverse conditions

20

of confinement, and state law claims be dismissed from this action based on

21

Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted;

22

4.

Defendants Sergeant Kellog, Sellers (Psych. Tech.), Stamphill (Psych. Tech.),

23

Kenneth Landry (Psych. Tech.), and Robin McConnell (Physician’s Assistant) be

24

dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against

25

them upon which relief may be granted; and

26

5.

27
28

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

///
2

1

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

2

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

7

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 10, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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