United States District Court, E.D. California
July 9, 2014
WILLIAM ROY BONNER, Plaintiff,
GIPSON, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT ACTION PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF'S EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS SGT. SCAIFE & C.O. HOLGUIN AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED (Doc. 1, 8) RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, William Roy Bonner, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on April 25, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On June 11, 2014, the Court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it stated cognizable claims against Defendants Sgt Scaife and C.O. Holguin for using excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 8.) However, the Court found that Plaintiff's Complaint failed to state any cognizable claims. ( Id. )
The Court ordered Plaintiff to either remedy the deficiencies in his non-cognizable claims via an amended complaint or to notify the Court that Plaintiff wishes to proceed only on the claim(s) found to be cognizable. ( Id. ) On June 25, 2014, Plaintiff informed the Court that he wishes to proceed solely on the claim(s) found to be cognizable in the Court's June 11, 2014 order. (Doc. 9.)
II. Findings and Recommendation
Plaintiff's Complaint states cognizable claims for relief against Defendants Sgt. Scaife and C.O. Holguin for using excessive force in violation of the Eight Amendment. However, Plaintiff does not state any other claims against Defendants Sgt. Scaife and/or C.O. Holguin upon which relief may be granted, nor does it state any cognizable claims against any other Defendant named in this action. Plaintiff was provided with the option of filing an amended complaint or proceeding with the claims found to be cognizable by the Court. Plaintiff opted to proceed on his cognizable claims under the Eighth Amendment for use of excessive force against Defendants Sgt. Scaife and C.O. Holguin.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action proceed on Plaintiff's Complaint, filed April 25, 2014, against Defendants Sgt. Scaife and C/O Holguin on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims;
2. all other claims and Defendants should be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
3. the action should be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for service and further proceedings.
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 30 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.