Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01700/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01700-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN E. FIELDS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

P. PATTERSON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-01700-LJO-GSA-PC

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 

PROCEED ON THE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT C/O 

PATTERSON FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE 

FORCE; AGAINST DEFENDANTS C/O 

PATTERSON AND SGT. MOLINA FOR 

RETALIATION; AND AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS SGT. MOLINA AND LT. 

FINLEY, FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH STATE LAW; AND THAT ALL 

OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 

DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION

(Doc. 16.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

TWENTY DAYS

Kevin E. Fields (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on September 17, 2010. (Doc. 1.) The case now proceeds on the First 

Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on May 31, 2013. (Doc. 16.) The First Amended 

Complaint names Correctional Officer (C/O) Patterson, Sergeant (Sgt.) Molina, and Lieutenant 

(Lt.) Finley, as defendants.

The court screened the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 

found that it states cognizable claims under § 1983 against defendant C/O Patterson for use of 

excessive force; against defendants C/O Patterson and Sgt. Molina for retaliation; and against 

Case 1:10-cv-01700-LJO-EPG Document 23 Filed 02/24/14 Page 1 of 2
2

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

defendants Sgt. Molina and Lt. Finley for failure to comply with state law. On February 5, 

2014, the court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to either file a Second Amended Complaint 

or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the 

court. (Doc. 21.) On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the court that he is 

willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court. (Doc. 22.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed with the First Amended Complaint filed on May 31, 2013, 

against defendant C/O Patterson for use of excessive force; against defendants 

C/O Patterson and Sgt. Molina for retaliation; and against defendants Sgt. 

Molina and Lt. Finley, for failure to comply with state law;

2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on 

Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to 

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:10-cv-01700-LJO-EPG Document 23 Filed 02/24/14 Page 2 of 2