(PC) Beckett v. Scalia ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW H. BECKETT, Case No. 1:20-cv-01468-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 13 v. DEFENDANTS FOLLOWING 14 SCALIA, et al., SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Matthew H. Beckett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 On October 31, 2023, the Court issued its Third Screening Order. (Doc. 29.) The Court 24 found Plaintiff’s second amended complaint plausibly alleged Eighth Amendment excessive force 25 claims against Defendants Scalia, Madrigal and Hernandez (Claim One), Eighth Amendment 26 failure to protect/failure to intervene claims against Defendant Hackworth (Claim One), and 27 Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants 28 Scalia, Madrigal, Hernandez and Hackworth (Claim Four); however, the Court also held the 1 second amended complaint failed to allege any other cognizable claim against any other named 2 Defendant. (Id. at 4-17.) Plaintiff was ordered to select one of the following three options within 3 21 days of the date of service of the order: (1) to notify the Court in writing that he does not wish 4 to file a third amended complaint and he is willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment 5 excessive force claims against Defendants Scalia, Madrigal and Hernandez, Eighth Amendment 6 failure to protect/failure to intervene claims against Defendant Hackworth, and Eighth 7 Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Scalia, 8 Madrigal, Hernandez and Hackworth with the remaining claims against any other defendants to 9 be dismissed; or (2) to file a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the 10 Court in the screening order; or (3) to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 18-19.) 11 On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating he was willing to proceed only 12 on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 32.) 13 II. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Third Screening Order, the Court 15 RECOMMENDS that: 16 1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 17 against Defendants Scalia, Madrigal and Hernandez (Claim One); Eighth Amendment 18 failure to protect/failure to intervene claims against Defendant Hackworth (Claim 19 One); and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims 20 against Defendants Scalia, Madrigal, Hernandez and Hackworth (Claim Four), 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 22 2. Defendant L. Hurtado be DISMISSED from this action; and 23 3. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint be DISMISSED. 24 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 25 this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 26 Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 27 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 28 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 1 | rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 2 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 | ITIS SOORDERED. “| Dated: □ November 30, 2023 | hr 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28