Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01485/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01485-13/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

RAYMOND WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SHANNON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. 1:05-cv-01485 LJO YNP GSA (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the November 21, 2006, second amended

complaint. On February 2, 2010, the court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s second amended

complaint states a cognizable claims against Defendant Rumbles for excessive force in violation of

the Eighth Amendment, but does not state any other cognizable claims and does not state any claims

against the remaining defendants. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint

or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. On

March 8, 2010, Plaintiff notified the Court that he does not wish to amend and is willing to proceed

on the claims found cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, this Findings and Recommendations

now issues. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given th

notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s November 21, 2006, second amended complaint,

1

Case 1:05-cv-01485-BAM Document 53 Filed 03/15/10 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

against Defendant Rumbles for violation of the Eighth Amendment;

2. Plaintiff’s First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment Due

Process, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and disciplinaryhearing claims be

dismissed for failure to state a claim; and

3. Defendants R. Shannon, T. Hudgins, E. Park M.C. Voss, James Yates, J.M.

Mattingly, J.L. Scott, L. Fugate, D. Huckaby, R. Lantz, J. Collier, C.O. Redding, S.

DeShazo, E. Zamora, A. Romero, J.A. Perez, I. Villa, and L. Wiest be dismissed

based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them.

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 thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections 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: March 15, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:05-cv-01485-BAM Document 53 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2