(PC) Washington v. Sutton ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ISAIAH WASHINGTON, 1:20-cv-00983 AWI-GSA-PC 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 11 v. PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS M. STURGES, O. NAVARRO, AND J. 12 SUTTON, et al., CORNEJO FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS 13 Defendants. AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 14 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 15 16 Isaiah Washington (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff 18 filed the Complaint commencing this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 1.) 19 The Complaint names as defendants John Sutton (Warden), M. Sturges (ISU Officer), O. 20 Navarro (ISU Officer), J. Cornejo (ISU Officer), and F. Feliciano (Appeals Coordinator) 21 (collectively, “Defendants”), and brings claims for sexual assault, unlawful strip search, 22 harassment, excessive force, and improper prison appeals process. (Id.) 23 The court screened the Complaint and found that it states cognizable claims against 24 defendants M. Sturges, O. Navarro, and J. Cornejo for use of excessive force in violation of the 25 Eighth Amendment, but no other claims against any of the Defendants. (ECF No. 17.) On 26 October 13, 2021, the court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file an 27 amended complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the claims 28 found cognizable by the court. (Id.) 1 On November 5, 2021, Plaintiff notified the court that he does not wish to file an amended 2 complaint and is willing to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF 3 No. 18.) 4 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. This action proceed only against defendants M. Sturges, O. Navarro, and J. 6 Cornejo for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 7 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 8 3. Plaintiff’s claims for sexual assault, unlawful strip search, harassment, and 9 improper prison appeals process be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's 10 failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; 11 4. Defendants John Sutton (Warden) and F. Feliciano (Appeals Coordinator) be 12 dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against 13 them upon which relief may be granted; and 14 5. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 15 including initiation of service of process. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 17 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 18 fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 19 may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 20 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 21 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 22 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: November 9, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28