Opinion
Case No. 1:19-cv-01700-EPG (PC)
05-01-2020
RAUL CUENTAS, Plaintiff, v. S. FRAUENHEIM, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED (ECF NOS. 1, 9, & 10) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
Raul Cuentas ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on November 26, 2019. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened Plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No. 9). The Court found that only the following claim should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff's claim against Defendants R. Aleman, R. Ramos, J. Vega, C. Gallegos, Lt. Sanchez, Sgt. Acevedes, M. Castro, and M. Black for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.).
The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claim found cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 11). On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order. (ECF No. 10).
In Plaintiff's notice, Plaintiff requests clarification regarding whether he needs to file an amended complaint that only reflects the names of the defendants that he is proceeding against. The Court clarifies that Plaintiff does not need to file an amended complaint. --------
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court's screening order that was entered on April 13, 2020 (ECF No. 9), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 10), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff's claim against Defendants R. Aleman, R. Ramos, J. Vega, C. Gallegos, Lt. Sanchez, Sgt. Acevedes, M. Castro, and M. Black for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
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 being served with 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 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 1 , 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE