(PC) Price v. Sherman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 EDMOND PAUL PRICE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00131-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 11 RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 12 DISMISSED STU SHERMAN, et al., 13 (ECF NOS. 1, 11, & 12) Defendants. 14 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 16 DISTRICT JUDGE 17 Edmond Paul Price (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on January 29, 2020. (ECF No. 1). 20 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 10). The Court found that only the 21 following claims should proceed past the screening stage: 22 - Defendant Alvarado, for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical 23 needs, each in violation of the Eighth Amendment; conspiracy to violate the Eighth 24 Amendment; violation of the First Amendment; and violation of the Fourth Amendment 25 for an unreasonable search. 26 // 27 // 28 1 - Defendant Carivao, for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical 2 needs, each in violation of the Eighth Amendment; conspiracy to violate the Eighth 3 Amendment; and violation of the First Amendment. 4 - Defendant Martinez, for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 5 conspiracy to violate the Eighth Amendment. 6 (Id.). 7 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claim found 8 cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the 9 complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge 10 consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 15-16). On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff notified the 11 Court that he wants to proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order. 12 (ECF No. 11). 13 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 14 May 19, 2020 (ECF No. 10), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 15 proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 11), it is 16 HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s 17 claims against: 18 - Defendant Alvarado, for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical 19 needs, each in violation of the Eighth Amendment; conspiracy to violate the Eighth 20 Amendment; violation of the First Amendment; and violation of the Fourth Amendment 21 for an unreasonable search. 22 - Defendant Carivao, for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical 23 needs, each in violation of the Eighth Amendment; conspiracy to violate the Eighth 24 Amendment; and violation of the First Amendment. 25 - Defendant Martinez, for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 26 conspiracy to violate the Eighth Amendment. 27 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 28 1. INE ENS OUCH OR OTe □□□ VM VI 1 || judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 2 || fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 3 || file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 4 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 5 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 6 || Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 7 || (9th Cir. 1991)). 8 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 9 || judge to this case. 10 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘2 |! Dated: _ June 29, 2020 [sf ey — 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28