Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00179/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00179-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL FOUST,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLEN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-CV-0179-DAD-DMC-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1.

On July 25, 2023, the Court issued an order addressing the sufficiency of 

Plaintiff’s complaint. See ECF No. 10. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s complaint states 

cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Godinez, Perez, and 

Strange arising from an incident which appears to have occurred at Salinas Valley State Prison. 

See id. The Court also determined that Plaintiff’s remaining claims related to the conditions of 

confinement, being placed in an MRI machine, medical care, and retaliation, as well as Plaintiff’s 

claim against the prison warden, Defendant Allen, are insufficient to proceed. See id. Plaintiff 

was provided leave to amend and cautioned that, if no amended complaint was filed within the 

30-day time period provided therefor, the action would proceed on Plaintiff’s excessive force 

claims against Defendants Godinez, Perez, and Strange, and that the Court would recommend that 

Case 2:23-cv-00179-DAD-DMC Document 26 Filed 01/12/24 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

all other claims and defendants be dismissed. See id. As of November 2, 2023, Plaintiff had not 

filed an amended complaint and the Court directed service on Defendants Godinez, Perez, and 

Strange consistent with the July 25, 2023, order. See ECF No. 17. The Court now recommends 

dismissal of all remaining claims and defendants. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends as follows:

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, as to Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Godinez, Perez, and Strange.

2. Plaintiff’s claims related to the conditions of confinement, being placed in 

an MRI machine, medical care, and retaliation be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Allen be DISMISSED for failure to 

state a claim.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 

with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 

Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 

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

Dated: January 11, 2024

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00179-DAD-DMC Document 26 Filed 01/12/24 Page 2 of 2