(PC) Martinez v. Navarro, et al.

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING 22 Findings and Recommendations in Full; ORDER for this Action to 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 Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/13/2020. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE ANTONIO MARTINEZ,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
vs.
M. NAVARRO, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00378-NONE-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL
(Doc. No. 22.)
ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO 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 DISMISSING
ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

18
19

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

20

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

21

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On August 10, 2020, the magistrate judge screened the operative complaint under

23

28 U.S.C. § 1915 and found that it states cognizable claims under the Eighth Amendment

24

against Defendants C/O E. Mares, Sergeant M. Navarro, C/O Cruz, and C/O Navarro for use of

25

excessive force. (Doc. No. 17.) The court also found that plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive

26

relief if he prevails in this case and is confined to seeking money damages for the violations of

27

his federal rights. (Id.) On September 8, 2020, plaintiff declined to amend his complaint and

28
1

1

instead notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by

2

the court and dismiss all other claims and defendants. (Doc. No. 20.)

3

On September 11 , 2020, the court entered findings and recommendations,

4

recommending that this action proceed only against defendants C/O E. Mares, Sergeant M.

5

Navarro, C/O Cruz, and C/O Navarro for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth

6

Amendment, for money damages only, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed

7

from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 22.) Plaintiff was

8

granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.)

9

To date, plaintiff has not filed any objections or otherwise responded to the findings and

10
11

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

12

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

13

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

14

analysis.

15

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

16

1.

17
18

The findings and recommendations issued on September 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 22)
are ADOPTED in full;

2.

This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s claims against defendants C/O E. Mares,

19

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

20

violation of the Eighth Amendment, for money damages only;

21

3.

22
23

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

4.

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

24

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

25

are dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims

26

against them upon which relief may be granted;

27
28

5.

Plaintiff’s claims for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, adverse conditions
of confinement, and state law claims are dismissed from this action based on
2

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

1
2

6.

3

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

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 13, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3