(PC) Heilman v. Viss ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01654-LJO-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ) RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 14 C. VISS, et.al., ) ) [ECF No. 18] 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Thomas John Heilman is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 11, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated 22 a cognizable claim against Defendant Santos for excessive force and against Defendant P. Ruiz for 23 retaliation. (ECF No. 15.) The Court granted Plaintiff the option to either file a first amended 24 complaint or notify the Court in writing of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. 25 (Id.) 26 On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the 27 cognizable claims identified by the Court on December 11, 2019. (ECF No. 18.) 28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court will recommend that this action proceed only against Defendant Santc 2 || for excessive force and against Defendant P. Ruiz for retaliation, and that all other claims and 3 || Defendants be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell 4 || Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Ci 5 || 2010). 6 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff's complaint, filed on August 7, 2019, (ECF No. 1), 8 against Defendant Santos for excessive force and against Defendant P. Ruiz for 9 retaliation; and 10 2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to state a 11 cognizable claim for relief. 12 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 13 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) days 14 || after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 15 || with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 16 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 17 || result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson 18 || v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Ci 19 |] 1991)). 20 21 IS SO ORDERED. A (ee 22 lI pated: _ January 17, 2020 OF 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28