Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01942/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01942-5/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

RICHARD SANSONE,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. C. THOMAS,

 Defendant.

1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION

PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS

THOMAS AND JOHN DOE #1 FOR USE OF 

EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND THAT ALL 

OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 

DISMISSED

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS

Richard Sansone (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The case now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint 

filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2014. (ECF No. 27.) The First Amended Complaint names 

Correctional Officer J. C. Thomas, Jane Doe #1 (dental assistant), John Doe #1 (correctional 

officer), John Doe #2 (correctional sergeant), John Doe #3 (appeals coordinator) and John Doe 

#4 (warden) as defendants, and alleges medical claims and claims for excessive force under the 

Eighth Amendment, and violations of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court screened Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A 

and found that it states cognizable claims for use of excessive force against defendants J. C. 

Thomas and John Doe #1. (ECF No. 30.) On January 22, 2016, Plaintiff was granted leave to 

either file a Second Amended Complaint or notify the Court that he is willing to proceed only 

on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (Id.) On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice 

informing the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claims against defendants Thomas and John Doe #1. (ECF No. 31.)

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 32 Filed 02/05/16 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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed only against defendants Correctional Officers J. C. Thomas 

and John Doe #1, on Plaintiff’s claims for use of excessive force in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment;

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

3. Plaintiff’s claims for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment and 

for violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment be dismissed from 

this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted under § 1983;

4. Defendants Jane Doe #1 (dental assistant), John Doe #2 (correctional sergeant), 

John Doe #3 (appeals coordinator) and John Doe #4 (warden) be dismissed from 

this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them under § 

1983.

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, any party may

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

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Any reply to the objections shall be 

served and filed within ten days after service of the 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, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 32 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 2