(PC) Washington v. Hicks ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, 1:19-cv-00156-NONE-GSA-PC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 12 RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL vs. (Doc. No. 18.) 13 DAVID HICKS, et al., ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED 14 ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS HICKS Defendants. 15 AND ROCHA FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH 16 AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS FOR 17 PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 18 19 Plaintiff Tracye Benard Washington is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 20 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On May 20, 2020, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that 23 this action proceed only against defendants Sergeant David Hicks and Correctional Officer 24 Hipolito Rocha for use of excessive force, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed 25 from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 18 (noting that plaintiff 26 elected to proceed on cognizable claims).) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which to file 27 28 1 On March 7, 2019, plaintiff paid the $400.00 filing fee in full for this case. (Court Record.) Lb YOY EU eee TOYS ev 1 || objections to the findings and recommendations. (/d.) The time period for filing objections has 2 || passed, and plaintiff has not filed objections or any other response to the findings and 3 || recommendations. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 5 || court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 6 || the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 7 || analysis. 8 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 20, 2020, (Doc. No. 18) are 10 ADOPTED in full; 11 2. This action now proceeds on plaintiff's Complaint filed on February 5, 2019, 12 against defendants Sergeant David Hicks and Correctional Officer Hipolito Rocha 13 for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 14 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this case based on plaintiff's 15 failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983, the 16 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Rehabilitation Act (RA); 17 4. Plaintiffs claims for failure to protect, violation of equal protection, violation of 18 the ADA or the RA, and violation of the Coleman v. Brown” consent decree are 19 dismissed from this case based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim under § 1983, 20 the ADA, or the RA; and 21 5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 22 proceedings, including initiation of service of process. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘ai 25 Dated: _ June 22, 2020 eee Te > UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 1? Coleman v. Brown, et al., 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995).