(PC) Coria v. Garcia ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 FERNANDO CORIA, JR., 1:20-cv-01652-DAD-GSA-PC 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS 12 vs. ACTION PROCEED ONLY WITH PLAINTIFF’S EXCESSIVE FORCE 13 GARCIA, et al., CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS GARCIA, NAVARRO, GALLAWAY, 14 Defendants. AND AVILA-BECERRA, AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS BE DISMISSED 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 16 17 Fernando Coria, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 20, 2020, 19 Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) 20 The Complaint names as defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) M. Garcia, C/O Thomas 21 Navarro, C/O Jeffrey Gallaway, and C/O Sergio Avila-Becerra (collectively, “Defendants”), and 22 brings claims for use of excessive force, retaliation, improper prison appeals process, false 23 reports, cover-up of wrongdoing, violation of due process, denial of access to courts, and 24 deliberate indifference. 25 The court screened the Complaint and found that it states cognizable claims under the 26 Eighth Amendment against defendants Garcia, Navarro, Gallaway, and Avila-Becerra for use of 27 excessive force, but no other cognizable claims against any Defendant. (ECF No. 34.) On March 28 13, 2022, the court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file an amended 1 complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the claims found 2 cognizable by the court. (Id.) 3 On March 30, 2022 and April 5, 2022, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to 4 proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF Nos. 35, 36.) 5 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Garcia, Navarro, 7 Gallaway, and Avila-Becerra for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth 8 Amendment; 9 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 10 3. Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation, improper prison appeals process, false reports, 11 cover-up of wrongdoing, violation of due process, denial of access to courts, and 12 deliberate indifference be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to 13 state any claims upon which relief may be granted; and 14 4. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 15 including initiation of service of process. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 17 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 18 fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 19 may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 20 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 21 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 22 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: April 6, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28