From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bolds v. Leuvanos

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 28, 2022
1:21-cv-01668-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01668-DAD-SAB (PC)

06-28-2022

JON-ERIK ROOSEVELT BOLDS, JR., Plaintiff, v. LEUVANOS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(DOC. NO. 30)

Plaintiff Jon-Erik Roosevelt Bolds, Jr. is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 15, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint (“FAC”) and found that he had stated a cognizable claims for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against defendant Luevanos for the alleged incident on May 28, 2021 and against defendants Luevanos, Valluas, Lucos, Magania, and Flores for the alleged incident on September 21, 2021, and a cognizable claim against defendants Lucos, Sosa, Bailey, Rafferty, and Espericueta for retaliation. (Doc. No. 22 at 7.) The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff had failed to state any other cognizable claims against those defendants in his FAC and failed to state any cognizable claims against the only other named defendants Mora and Velo. (Id.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint in an attempt to cure the noted deficiencies or to notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable in the screening order within thirty (30) days of service of that order. (Id. at 7-8.) On May 23, 2022, plaintiff notified the court that he was willing to proceed only on the claims identified by the magistrate judge in the screening order as cognizable. (Doc. No. 28.)

Plaintiff named defendant Mora in his original complaint but did not include defendant Mora as a named defendant in his FAC. Conversely, plaintiff did not name defendant Velo in his original complaint but added defendant Velo in his FAC. Accordingly, the court will direct the Clerk of the Court to update the docket to reflect that defendants Mora and Vela have been terminated as named defendants in this action.

Accordingly, on May 26, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this case proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order. (Doc. No. 30.) The magistrate judge also recommended that all other claims brought, and all other defendants named, by plaintiff in his FAC be dismissed from this action. (Id. at 2.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 26, 2022 (Doc. No. 30) are adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff's claims for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendant Luevanos for the alleged incident on May 28, 2021 and against defendants Luevanos, Valluas, Lucos, Magania, and Flores for the alleged incident on September 21, 2021, and plaintiff's claim against defendants Lucos, Sosa, Bailey, Rafferty, and Espericueta for retaliation;

3. All other claims and named defendants are dismissed;

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendants Mora and Velo have been terminated as named defendants in this action; and

5. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bolds v. Leuvanos

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 28, 2022
1:21-cv-01668-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2022)
Case details for

Bolds v. Leuvanos

Case Details

Full title:JON-ERIK ROOSEVELT BOLDS, JR., Plaintiff, v. LEUVANOS, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 28, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-01668-DAD-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2022)