Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00367/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00367-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

VASQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00367-NONE-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 16)

Plaintiff Larry William Cortinas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred 

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On February 4, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed a screening order, finding that 

plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 12) states a cognizable excessive force claim but 

that remaining claims were not cognizable. (Doc. No. 14.) The judge granted plaintiff leave to 

amend. (Id. at 6.)

On February 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 15.) Upon 

screening, the magistrate judge found that the amended complaint states cognizable claims of 

excessive force, sexual assault, and deliberate indifference pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but it 

fails to state cognizable claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the 

Rehabilitation Act. (Doc. No. 16 at 4-8.) The judge further found that plaintiff’s request to refer 

Case 1:19-cv-00367-JLT-SKO Document 19 Filed 05/11/20 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

criminal charges to the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not permissible. (Id. at 8.) Given plaintiff’s two 

opportunities to amend, the magistrate judge found that further amendment would be futile. (Id.

at 1.)

Accordingly, on March 23, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and 

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation 

Act be dismissed, and that plaintiff’s request for a referral of criminal charges to the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office be dismissed. (Doc. No. 16.) The magistrate judge provided plaintiff 21 days 

to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff has not filed any 

objections and the time to do so has passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations filed on March 23, 2020 (Doc. No. 16) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation 

Act are dismissed;

3. Plaintiff’s claims of excessive force, sexual assault, and deliberate indifference to 

serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are allowed to proceed;

4. Plaintiff’s request for a referral of criminal charges to the U.S. Attorney’s Office is 

dismissed; and,

5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00367-JLT-SKO Document 19 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 2