(PC) Williams v. Rocha ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00095-ADA-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS 13 v. 14 A. ROCHA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Lance Williams is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action brought 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 19 On March 10, 2023, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 20.) The Court 20 found Plaintiff’s complaint stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants 21 Rocha, Florez, and Magallanes, and First Amendment claims against Defendants Rocha and 22 Florez, but failed to state any other cognizable claims for relief against any other defendant. (Id. 23 at 7-13.) Plaintiff was given 21 days to elect one of the following options: (1) file a first amended 24 complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the order; (2) notify the Court of his willingness to 25 proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court; or (3) file a notice of voluntary 26 dismissal. (Id. at 13-14.) 27 // 28 1 On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed notice electing to proceed only on the claims found 2 cognizable by the Court. (See Doc. 23.) 3 II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s First Screening Order (Doc. 20), 5 the Court RECOMMENDS that: 6 1. This action PROCEED on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 7 against Defendants Rocha (Claim I) and Florez (Claims I & II), failure to protect 8 claims against Defendants Rocha (Claim I), Florez (Claim I) and Magallanes (Claim 9 II), and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants 10 Rocha and Florez (Claim I), and Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against 11 Defendants Rocha (Claim I) and Florez (Claims I & III); and 12 2. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED. 13 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 14 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 15 service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the 16 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 17 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 18 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 19 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: April 18, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28