- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ROBERTS, No. 2:22-CV-1831-DJC-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CSP – SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1. 19 On November 21, 2022, the Court issued an order addressing the sufficiency of 20 Plaintiff’s complaint as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See ECF No. 10. The 21 Court summarized Plaintiff’s allegations as follows: 22 Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) California State Prison – Sacramento; (2) Sgt. Caruso; and (3) Correctional Officer 23 Acuna. See ECF No. 1, pg. 2. In his first claim for relief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Caruso used excessive force on September 13, 2022, 24 while Defendant Acuna watched and did nothing. See id. at 3. In his second claim for relief, Plaintiff contends that unnamed staff denied him 25 medical care. See id. at 4. 26 ECF No. 16, pg. 2. 27 / / / 28 / / / ] The Court determined that Plaintiff states cognizable Eighth Amendment 2 || excessive force claims against Defendants Caruso and Acuna. See id. The Court, however, 3 || determined that Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment medical care claims against unnamed individuals 4 || are not cognizable, and that Defendant California State Prison — Sacramento is immune from suit 5 || under the Eleventh Amendment. See id. at 2-5. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file a 6 || first amended complaint addressing the defects identified in the Court’s screening order and 7 || advised that, if he failed to do so within the time provided, the defective claims/defendants would 8 | be subject to dismissal. The time provided to file an amended complaint has passed and Plaintiff 9 | has not done so. The Court, therefor, recommends dismissal of Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment 10 || medical care claim as well as Defendant California State Prison — Sacramento for the reasons 11 | outlined in the screening order. By separate order issued herewith, the Court directs service of 12 || process on Defendants Caruso and Acuna. 13 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that: 14 1. This action proceed on Plaintiffs original complaint as to his Eighth 15 || Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Acuna and Caruso; 16 2. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical care claims be dismissed; and 17 3. California State Prison — Sacramento be dismissed as a defendant to this 18 | action 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 20 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 21 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 22 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 23 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 24 || Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 | Dated: April 4, 2023 Co 26 DENNIS M. COTA 07 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:22-cv-01831
Filed Date: 4/5/2023
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/20/2024