(PC) Haynes v. Contreas ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RAYSHAWN HAYNES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00536-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 12 RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 13 DISMISSED F. CONTREAS, et al., 14 (ECF Nos. 1 & 8) Defendants. 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 17 DISTRICT JUDGE 18 Rayshawn Haynes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes state law 20 claims. 21 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on May 4, 2022. (ECF No. 1). 22 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 8). The Court found that only the 23 following claims should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 24 excessive force claims against defendants Cleveland, Luna, Cloud, Orozco, Chan, and Contreas 25 and his Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Rodriguez for unwanted medical 26 treatment. (Id.). 27 The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either: “a. File a First Amended Complaint; b. 28 Notify the Court in writing that he does not want to file an amended complaint and instead 1 wants to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants 2 Cleveland, Luna, Cloud, Orozco, Chan, and Contreas and his Fourteenth Amendment claim 3 against defendant Rodriguez for unwanted medical treatment; or c. Notify the Court in writing 4 that he wants to stand on his complaint.” (Id. at 14). On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed what 5 the Court construes as a notice that he wants to proceed only on the claims that the Court found 6 should proceed past screening. (ECF No. 9).1 7 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 8 July 27, 2022 (ECF No. 8), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 9 proceed only on the claims that the Court found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 9), it 10 is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for 11 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Cleveland, Luna, 12 Cloud, Orozco, Chan, and Contreas and his Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant 13 Rodriguez for unwanted medical treatment. 14 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 15 judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 16 fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 17 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 20 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 21 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 \\\ 23 \\\ 24 \\\ 25 26 1 At times Plaintiff’s response is difficult to understand. Plaintiff appears to state that he wants to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment claims, but the Court also found that his Fourteenth Amendment claim against 27 defendant Rodriguez for unwanted medical treatment should proceed past screening. Accordingly, at this time, the Court will allow the case to proceed on both the Eighth Amendment claims and the Fourteenth Amendment claim. 28 If Plaintiff does not want to proceed on his Fourteenth Amendment claim, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal of this claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. een eee NE II OSES IEE EID IDEAS ED EE 1 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 2 || Judge to this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 6, 2022 [sl heey 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28