(PC) Cuentas v. Frauenheim ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RAUL CUENTAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01700-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 11 RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 12 DISMISSED S. FRAUENHEIM, et al., 13 (ECF NOS. 1, 9, & 10) Defendants. 14 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 16 DISTRICT JUDGE 17 Raul Cuentas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on November 26, 2019. (ECF No. 20 1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 9). The Court found that only the 21 following claim should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants 22 R. Aleman, R. Ramos, J. Vega, C. Gallegos, Lt. Sanchez, Sgt. Acevedes, M. Castro, and M. 23 Black for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.). 24 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claim found 25 cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the 26 complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge 27 consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 11). On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court 28 that he wants to proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order. (ECF No. wow 4:40 VV EEUU NOME PIO Te OY ev 1 |} 10).! 2 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 3 || April 13, 2020 (ECF No. 9), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 4 || proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 10), it is 5 |] HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff's 6 against Defendants R. Aleman, R. Ramos, J. Vega, C. Gallegos, Lt. Sanchez, Sgt. 7 || Acevedes, M. Castro, and M. Black for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 8 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 9 || judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 10 fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 11 || file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 12 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 13 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 14 || Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 15 |} (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 17 || judge to this case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: _May 1, 2020 [Je hey — 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 ‘Tn Plaintiff's notice, Plaintiff requests clarification regarding whether he needs to file an amended 28 |} complaint that only reflects the names of the defendants that he is proceeding against. The Court clarifies that Plaintiff does not need to file an amended complaint.