From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Medina v. CDCR

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 14, 2022
1:22-cv-00764-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2022)

Opinion

1:22-cv-00764-EPG (PC)

10-14-2022

CESARIO VIZCARRA MEDINA, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED (ECF NOS. 1 & 6) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

Cesario Medina (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on June 22, 2022. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened Plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No. 6). The Court found that only the following claim should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3. (Id.).

The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either: “a. File a First Amended Complaint; b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not want to file an amended complaint and instead wants to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3; or c. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his complaint.” (Id. at 11). On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating that he wants to proceed with his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3. (ECF No. 7).Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court's screening order that was entered on September 30, 2022 (ECF No. 6), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to proceed on the claim that the Court found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 7), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3.

The Court notes that it did not make any recommendations as to how Plaintiff should proceed.

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.


Summaries of

Medina v. CDCR

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 14, 2022
1:22-cv-00764-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2022)
Case details for

Medina v. CDCR

Case Details

Full title:CESARIO VIZCARRA MEDINA, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 14, 2022

Citations

1:22-cv-00764-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2022)