From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Reilly

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 17, 2021
2:20-cv-1709 WBS AC P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-cv-1709 WBS AC P

11-17-2021

RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. A. REILLY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 5, 2021, the undersigned screened the complaint and found that plaintiff had sufficiently stated a claim for excessive force against defendants Hood, Reilly, Gonzales, and Phillips, but that he had not stated any other claims against them and had failed to state any claims against defendant Dina. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff was given the option of (1) proceeding on his excessive force claim and voluntarily dismissing all other claims against Hood, Reilly, Gonzales, and Phillips and all claims against Dina, or (2) amending the complaint. Id. at 9.

In response to the screening order, plaintiff has filed both objections to the screening that make additional allegations related to retaliation, ECF No. 31, and a notice stating that he would like to proceed on the complaint as screened and voluntarily dismiss without prejudice all claims except his excessive force claim against Hood, Reilly, Gonzales, and Phillips, ECF No. 30. It is therefore unclear whether plaintiff wants to proceed on the complaint as screened, amend the complaint to add additional allegations related to retaliation, or stand on the original complaint. Because plaintiff has provided conflicting responses, he will need to clarify for the court how he wishes to proceed. Plaintiff has the following three options:

1. Plaintiff may proceed on the complaint as screened. This means that the case will go forward on plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendants Hood, Reilly, Gonzales, and Phillips only, and plaintiff will be voluntarily dismissing without prejudice all other claims against defendants Hood, Reilly, Gonzales, and Phillips and all claims against defendant Dina.
2. Plaintiff may amend the complaint. This means that plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint to add additional facts in order to attempt to state additional claims for relief.
3. Plaintiff may stand on the original complaint. This means that plaintiff believes the allegations in his original complaint, without any additional information, are sufficient to state a claim for relief and that he does not want to amend the complaint. If plaintiff chooses this option, the undersigned will convert the screening order to findings and recommendations and recommend that all claims against defendant Dina and all claims against defendants Hood, Reilly, Gonzales, and Phillips, except the excessive force claim, be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff will then have an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations, which the district judge will consider before deciding whether to adopt them.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the service of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the attached form notifying the court how he wants to proceed. If plaintiff does not return the form, the court will assume that he is choosing to stand on the original complaint and will recommend dismissal without prejudice of all claims against defendant Dina and all claims against defendants Hood, Reilly, Gonzales, and Phillips, except the excessive force claim.


Summaries of

Brown v. Reilly

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 17, 2021
2:20-cv-1709 WBS AC P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021)
Case details for

Brown v. Reilly

Case Details

Full title:RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. A. REILLY, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 17, 2021

Citations

2:20-cv-1709 WBS AC P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021)