Opinion
1:19-cv-01232-GSA-PC
11-08-2021
EMANUEL BOONE, Plaintiff, v. CSP CORCORAN WARDEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS CASE
AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS BURNES, TAPIA, FLORES, BRANDON, DOWDY, BLANCO, AND VEGA FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS
GARY S. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Emanuel Boone (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on September 6, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On September 2, 2020, the court screened the Complaint and issued an order for Plaintiff to either (1) file an amended complaint or (2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the excessive force claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 12.) On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 13.)
The First Amended Complaint names as defendants the Warden of CSP; Sergeant J. Burnes; Correctional Officer (C/O) D. Tapia; C/O J. Flores; C/O K. Brandon; C/O C. Dowdy; C/O N. Blanco; Manuel Galvan, Jr. (Psychiatric Technician (Psych Tech)); Rajinder Gill (LVN); S. Ramirez (RN); Dr. Edgar Clark; Dr. Ravijot Gill; and C/O E. Vega (collectively, “Defendants”), and brings claims for improper prison appeals process, denial of adequate medical care, excessive force, and failure to intercede. (Id.)
On October 7, 2021, the court screened the First Amended Complaint and found that it states claims for use of excessive force against defendants Burnes, Tapia, Flores, Brandon, Dowdy, Blanco, and Vega, but no other § 1983 claims against any of the Defendants. (ECF No. 15.) The court issued an order for Plaintiff to either (1) file a Second Amended Complaint or (2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the excessive force claims found cognizable by the court. (Id.)
On October 29, 2021, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the excessive force claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 16.)
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action proceed only with Plaintiff's claims against defendants Burnes, Tapia, Flores, Brandon, Dowdy, Blanco, and Vega for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;
3. Plaintiff's claims for improper prison appeals process, denial of adequate medical care, and failure to intercede be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted;
4. Defendants Warden of CSP, Manuel Galvan, Jr. (Psychiatric Technician (Psych Tech)); Rajinder Gill (LVN); S. Ramirez (RN); Dr. Edgar Clark; and Dr. Ravijot Gill be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims against them upon which relief may be granted; and
5. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.