(PC) Medina v. Luis ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CESARIO VIZCARRA MEDINA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00764-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 12 RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 13 DISMISSED CDCR, et al., 14 (ECF Nos. 1 & 6) Defendants. 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 17 DISTRICT JUDGE 18 Cesario Medina (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 19 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on June 22, 2022. (ECF No. 1). 21 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 6). The Court found that only the 22 following claim should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 23 excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3. (Id.). 24 The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either: “a. File a First Amended Complaint; b. 25 Notify the Court in writing that he does not want to file an amended complaint and instead 26 wants to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Doe ISU 27 Officers 1-3; or c. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his complaint.” (Id. at 28 11). On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating that he wants to proceed with his 1 || Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3. (ECF No. 7).! 2 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 3 || September 30, 2022 (ECF No. 6), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 4 || proceed on the claim that the Court found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 7), it is 5 || HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff's 6 || Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3. 7 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 8 || judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 9 || fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 10 || file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 11 |) Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 12 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 13 || Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 14 |) (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 16 || judge to this case. 17 ig IS SO ORDERED. ll Dated: _ October 14, 2022 [sf ey — 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' The Court notes that it did not make any recommendations as to how Plaintiff should proceed.