Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Martinez v. California State Prison Corcoran

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 5, 2019

FRED FELEKI MARTINEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON CORCORAN, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. NOS. 16, 18, 22)

         Plaintiff Fred Feleki Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

         On May 7, 2019, plaintiff filed a letter, which the assigned magistrate judge interpreted as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 16.) On May 16, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation recommending that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. No. 18.) The findings and recommendation were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.)

         On May 20, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's complaint, and found that plaintiff stated cognizable claims for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Rubio, Alcocer, and Quintana; for failure to intervene against defendants Stroud and Alcocer; and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against defendants Rubio, Alcocer, Quintana, and Stroud. (Doc. No. 19.) The assigned magistrate judge found that plaintiff's complaint failed to state any other cognizable claims for relief. (Id.) Plaintiff was ordered to file either a first amended complaint or a written notice informing the court that he was willing to proceed only on the cognizable claims identified by the court within thirty (30) days. (Id. at 9-10.)

         On June 10, 2019, after discovering that plaintiff had been transferred to a new prison, the magistrate judge ordered the Clerk of the Court to re-serve the May 16, 2019 findings and recommendation and the May 20, 2019 screening order on plaintiff at his new institution of confinement. (Doc. No. 20.) The magistrate judge ordered that, in light of the re-service, any objections to the May 16, 2019 findings and recommendation were due within fourteen (14) days from the date of re-service. (Id. at 2.) Additionally, any first amended complaint or written notice to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court was then made due within thirty (30) days from the date that the screening order was re-served on plaintiff. (Id.)

         On June 13, 2019, plaintiff filed a written notice stating that he did not wish to file an amended complaint and that he wished to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order.[1] (Doc. No. 21.) Consequently, on June 20, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed on plaintiff's cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 22.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 10.)

         More than fourteen days have passed since the May 16, 2019 findings and recommendation were re-served and the June 20, 2019 findings and recommendations were served, and no objections to either have been filed.

         In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the assigned magistrate judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

         For these reasons,

1. The findings and recommendation issued on May 16, 2019 (Doc. No. 18) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 16) is denied;
3. The findings and recommendations issued on June 20, 2019 (Doc. No. 22) are adopted;
4. This action shall proceed on plaintiffs complaint, filed January 25, 2019 (Doc. No. 1), for excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Rubio, Alcocer, and Quintana; for failure to intervene against defendants Stroud and Alcocer; and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against defendants Rubio, Alcocer, Quintana, and Stroud;
5. All other claims and defendants are dismissed based on plaintiff s failure to state a claim upon which relief ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.