Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01473-0/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

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

BRIAN C. APPLEGATE,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOUIS MORENO, JR.,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01473-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

WITH PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 1)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action initially was filed on May 29, 2015 in the 

Superior Court of California, County of Kings. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant removed the 

action to this Court on September 28, 2015. (Id.) Along with his notice of removal, 

Defendant asked that the Court screen Plaintiff’s complaint and allow Defendant thirty 

days following the Court’s screening order to respond to the complaint.

On May 20, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1), and found 

that it stated the following cognizable claims for damages against Defendant Moreno: 

Eighth Amendment failure to protect, First Amendment retaliation, Bane Act, ordinary 

negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of 

emotional distress. However, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s remaining claims were 

Case 1:15-cv-01473-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 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

2

not cognizable. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was given the option to either file an amended 

complaint or to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. (Id.) Plaintiff 

responded that he wished to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 9.)

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff proceed against Defendant Moreno on the following claims for 

damages: Eighth Amendment failure to protect, First Amendment 

retaliation, Bane Act, ordinary negligence, intentional infliction of emotional 

distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress;

2. All other claims asserted in the complaint be dismissed with prejudice; and

3. Defendant be required to file an answer or motion within thirty (30) days 

from the date of adoption of these findings and recommendations.

The 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)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendations, the 

parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” A party may 

respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after 

being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01473-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 2