Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00498/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00498-2/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

SIMON THORNTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD L. GRISSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-0498-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS 

WITH PREJUDICE

 (ECF NOS. 9, 18)

FOURTEEN DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

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

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On October 4, 2016, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) was 

screened and found to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 

against Defendant Grissom and an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against 

Defendant Cruz. (ECF No. 18.) However, the Court concluded that all other claims and 

Defendants were subject to dismissal.

Plaintiff was then directed to file a notice of his willingness to proceed on the 

pleading as screened or to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has now filed a

notice of his willingness to proceed on the First Amended Complaint as screened. (ECF 

No. 20.)

Case 1:16-cv-00498-LJO-JDP Document 22 Filed 11/08/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff proceed on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against 

Defendant Grissom and an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim 

against Defendant Cruz; and

2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed with prejudice. 

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: November 7, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00498-LJO-JDP Document 22 Filed 11/08/16 Page 2 of 2