(PC) Grayson v. Sacramento County Main Jail et al

Filing 14

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 1/27/2025 RECOMMENDING this action proceed on plaintiff's original complaint as to the following claims: a. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Collins; b. Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Lewis; and all other claims and defendants be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim as explained in the Court's 10/31/2024, order. Referred to Judge Dena M. Coggins. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Deputy Clerk KLY)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZIQUAN S. GRAYSON, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:23-CV-2859-DC-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIL JAIL, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint. See ECF No. 1. 20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). On October 31, 2024, the Court issued an order addressing the sufficiency of 23 Plaintiff's complaint. See ECF No. 12. The Court determined that the complaint plausibly states 24 a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Collins related to 25 events alleged in the complaint occurring on September 11, 2023, at the Sacramento County Main 26 Jail, as well as a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Lewis. See id. 27 The Court found that Plaintiff's complaint otherwise failed to state cognizable claims against any 28 other named defendant. See id. 1 1 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to amend and cautioned that, if no first 2 amended complaint was filed within the time permitted therefor, the Court would direct service as 3 to the cognizable claims against Defendants Collins and Lewis and would issue findings and 4 recommendations that all other claims and defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 5 See id. To date, the time permitted for filing of a first amended complaint has passed and 6 Plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court will by separate order 7 direct Plaintiff to submit documents necessary for service of the original complaint on Defendants 8 Collins and Lewis as to those claims identified in the October 31, 2024, order as cognizable. By 9 these findings and recommendations, the Court will recommend dismissal of other claims and 10 defendants. 11 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends as follows: 12 1. 13 following claims: 14 a. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Collins. 15 b. Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Lewis. 16 17 18 This action proceed on Plaintiff's original complaint, ECF No. 1, as to the 2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim as explained in the Court's October 31, 2024, order. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 20 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 21 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 22 with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 23 Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 24 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 Dated: January 27, 2025 ____________________________________ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 2

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?