(PC) Brooks v. Arrizola ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAMAR BROOKS, 1:20-cv-00476-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS 13 vs. CASE 14 ARRIZOLA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 15 Defendants. PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT C/O ARRIZOLA FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE 16 FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT ALL OTHER 17 CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 18 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 19 20 21 22 23 Lamar Brooks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 24 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 25 commencing this action on April 3, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint names as defendants 26 Correctional Officer (C/O) Arrizola, Sergeant Stane, and Lieutenant Fitzpatrick (collectively, 27 “Defendants”), and brings claims for excessive force, inadequate medical care, improper prison 28 appeals process, cover-up of wrongdoing, and state law claims. 1 The court screened the Complaint and found that it states a cognizable claim under the 2 Eighth Amendment against defendant C/O Arrizola for use of excessive force in violation of the 3 Eighth Amendment, but no other claims against any of the Defendants. On August 9, 2021, the 4 court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to either: (1) file a First Amended Complaint, 5 or (2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the excessive force claim found 6 cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 13.) 7 On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with 8 the claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 14.) 9 Based on the foregoing, the Clerk is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a district 10 judge to this action; and 11 The court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 12 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim against defendant C/O Arrizola for 13 use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 14 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 15 3. Plaintiff’s claims for inadequate medical care, improper prison appeals process, 16 cover-up of wrongdoing, and state law claims be dismissed from this action based 17 on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; 18 4. Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed, without prejudice to bringing the claims 19 to state court; 20 5. Defendants Sergeant Stane and Lieutenant Fitzpatrick be dismissed from this 21 action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which 22 relief may be granted; and 23 6. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 24 including initiation of service of process. 25 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 27 fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 28 may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 1 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 2 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 3 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: September 23, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28