(PC) Singh v. Pheiffer ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHAEL MANJEET SINGH, Case No. 1:22-cv-01412-ADA-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 12 RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 13 DISMISSED WARDEN PHEIFFER, et al., 14 (ECF Nos. 9 & 28). Defendants. 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 Michael Manjeet Singh (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on May 27, 2022. (ECF No. 9). 20 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 28). The Court found that only the 21 following claims should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims 22 for excessive force against Defendants Veith and Fowler, Eight Amendment claims for failure 23 to protect and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendants Veith, 24 Fowler, and Diaz, and state law claims for negligent failure to protect and failure to summon 25 medical care against Defendants Veith, Fowler, and Diaz. (Id., p. 2). 26 The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either: “a. File a First Amended Complaint; b. 27 Notify the Court that he wants to proceed only on claims against Defendants Veith, Fowler, and 28 Diaz identified in this order; or c. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his 1 |/complaint.” (Id. at 17-18). On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice that he wants to 2 || proceed only on the claims that the Court found should proceed past screening. (ECF No. 34). 3 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 4 || April 3, 2023 (ECF No. 28), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 5 || proceed only on the claims that the Court found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 34), it 6 |}is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for 7 || Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force against Defendants Veith and Fowler; 8 || Eight Amendment claim for failure to protect against Defendants Veith, Fowler, and Diaz; 9 || Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against 10 || Defendants Veith, Fowler, and Diaz; state law tort claim for negligent failure to protect against 11 || Defendants Veith, Fowler, and Diaz; and state law claim for failure to summon medical care in 12 || violation of California Government Code $§ 845.6 and 844 against Defendants Veith, Fowler, 13 || and Diaz. 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 53 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 |! Dated: _ October 11, 2023 [sf hey □□ 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28