From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Feasance v. Schulteis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 5, 2013
1:08-cv-00615-LJO-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013)

Opinion

1:08-cv-00615-LJO-GSA-PC

12-05-2013

JAQUES FEASANCE, Plaintiff, v. L. L. SCHULTEIS, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION

PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS

HOPKINS, BUSBY, DAVIS, DUFFY, AND

BECKETT, AND THAT ALL OTHER

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE

DISMISSED


OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

Jaques Fearence ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on May 1, 2008. (Doc. 1.) The case now proceeds on the Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 22, 2013. (Doc. 64.) The Third Amended Complaint names as defendants Lieutenant S. Hopkins, J. Busby, T.C. Davis, D. Duffy, and J.M. Beckett, and alleges various claims including excessive force, failure to protect, verbal harassment, and conspiracy.

The court screened the Third Amended Complaint and found viable claims against defendants Hopkins and Busby for use of excessive force, against defendants Hopkins, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for failure to protect Plaintiff and against defendants Hopkins, Busby, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for conspiracy to use excessive force. The court also found that this is a damages only action.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed only against defendants Hopkins and Busby for use of excessive force, against defendants Hopkins, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for failure to protect Plaintiff, and against defendants Hopkins, Busby, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for conspiracy to use excessive force.;
2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; and
3. Plaintiff's claims for verbal harassment and injunctive relief be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim under § 1983.

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)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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.

Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Feasance v. Schulteis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 5, 2013
1:08-cv-00615-LJO-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013)
Case details for

Feasance v. Schulteis

Case Details

Full title:JAQUES FEASANCE, Plaintiff, v. L. L. SCHULTEIS, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 5, 2013

Citations

1:08-cv-00615-LJO-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013)