(PC) Shepard v. Gannon et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 23 Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 06/03/2024. Cody Williams, Jesse Diaz, J. Rivas, C. Martinez and Shantel Reyna added. Warden terminated. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

LAMONT SHEPARD,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
S. GANNON, et al.,

No. 1:23-cv-01486-KES-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. 23)

Defendants.

16
17
18

Lamont Shepard is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, as amended, alleges that, after he assisted

20

another inmate with a prison grievance, prison officials began mistreating him, including using

21

excessive force against him, retaliating against him, and denying him medical care. See generally

22

Doc. 14. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

24

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on October 18, 2023, and a First Amended Complaint

25

FAC on January 29, 2024. Docs. 1, 14. Plaintiff thereafter filed multiple requests to amend his

26

complaint to add new claims and defendants, without attaching a proposed amended complaint.

27

Docs. 15, 19. The court denied those motions and explained that a motion to amend needed to

28
1

1

include a Second Amended Complaint, and gave plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

2

Docs. 11, 16, 21. On March 14, 2024, the court issued an order stating in part:

3

The Court will give Plaintiff 30 days to file a motion for leave to
amend the complaint that includes a complete proposed Second
Amended Complaint. If within that time Plaintiff files a motion for
leave and proposed second amended complaint, the Court will screen
that second amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to do so within 30
days, or once again asks to add defendants without providing a
proposed amended complaint in its entirety, the case will proceed on
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14), which will be
subject to screening by the Court.

4
5
6
7
8

Doc. 21.

9

On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice to proceed on his first amended complaint.

10

Doc 22. The assigned magistrate judge then screened the first amended complaint and issued

11

findings and recommendations on April 22, 2024, finding that plaintiff stated the following

12

cognizable claims:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

a) excessive use of force claim against (1) Officer Gannon, (2) Officer Levinson,
(3) Sgt. Cody Williams, (4) Officer Jesse Diaz, and (5) Officer J. Rivas;
b) retaliation claim against (1) Officer Gannon, (2) Officer Levinson, and
(3) Lt. C. Martinez;
c) conspiracy claim against (1) Officer Gannon, (2) Officer Levinson, and
(3) Lt. C. Martinez; and
d) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Nurse Shantel
Reyna.

21

Doc. 23 at 21. The magistrate judge also recommended that “[a]ll other claims and Defendants

22

be dismissed without further leave to amend.” Id.

23

The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and notified him that any

24

objections were to be filed within thirty days after service. Id. The court advised him that

25

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.”

26

Id. (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014)). No objections have been

27

filed, and the deadline to do so has expired.

28
2

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this court has conducted a de novo review of

2

this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the court finds the findings and

3

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

4

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

5

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 22, 2024 (Doc. 23), are

6
7

ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. This case shall PROCEED on the following claims:

8

a) excessive use of force claim against (1) Officer Gannon, (2) Officer Levinson,

9

(3) Sgt. Cody Williams, (4) Officer Jesse Diaz, and (5) Officer J. Rivas;

10

b) retaliation claim against (1) Officer Gannon, (2) Officer Levinson, and

11

(3) Lt. C. Martinez;

12

c) conspiracy claim against (1) Officer Gannon, (2) Officer Levinson, and

13

(3) Lt. C. Martinez; and

14

d) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Nurse Shantel

15
16

Reyna;
3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon

17
18

which relief may be granted;
4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for proceedings consistent

19

with this order.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 3, 2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3