(PC) Matthews v. Ramos ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 GENE RAYMOND MATTHEWS, III, Case No. 1:22-cv-01508-SAB (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 11 TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT v. JUDGE TO THIS ACTION 12 S. RAMOS, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF Defendants. CERTAIN CLAIMS 14 (ECF Nos. 16, 17) 15 16 17 Plaintiff Gene Raymond Matthews, III is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On December 9, 2022, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and found 20 that he stated a cognizable claim against Defendants S. Ramos and G. King for failing to 21 intervene during the use of assault by fellow inmates on November 1, 2021, and subsequently 22 using force on Plaintiff. Plaintiff also stated a cognizable claim for excessive force against 23 Defendants Ujeda and John Does one through three for also allegedly using excessive force upon 24 him on November 1, 2021. (ECF No. 16.) However, Plaintiff failed to state any other 25 cognizable claims. Plaintiff was granted the opportunity to file an amended complaint or notify 26 the Court of his intent to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable. (Id.) On December 27, 27 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable. (ECF No. 17.) 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a District 2 | Judge to this action 3 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. This action proceed against Defendants S. Ramos and G. King for failing to 5 intervene during the use of assault by fellow inmates on November 1, 2021, and 6 subsequently using force on Plaintiff, and against Defendants Ujeda and John 7 Does one through three for alleged use of excessive force on November 1, 2021; 8 and 9 2. All other claims be dismissed from the action for failure to state a cognizable 10 claim for relief. 11 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 12 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen 13 | (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 14 | written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 15 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 16 | within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 17 | 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 18 | 1991)). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. ee 21 | Dated: _ January 3, 2023 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28