Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00027/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00027-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONI DEWARD LEVINGSTON, No. CIV S-06-0027-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PAUL FREEMAN BONNET, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), filed on January

5, 2006. On April 28, 2006, the court issued an order identifying several defects in plaintiff’s

complaint. In particular, plaintiff was advised as follows:

Because the complaint appears to otherwise state a

cognizable excessive force claim against defendant Bonnet, if no amended

complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the court will issue

findings and recommendations that the claims identified herein as

defective be dismissed, as well as such further orders as are necessary for

service of process as to the cognizable claims.

Plaintiff has not elected to file an amended complaint. 

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-00027-FCD-CMK Document 14 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

In the April 28, 2006, order, the court set forth the background of this case, which

need not be repeated here. The court also identified defects with respect to plaintiff’s claim

concerning his parole revocation hearing and plaintiff’s claims against various municipal

defendants. As to plaintiff’s parole revocation hearing claim, the court concluded:

In this case, plaintiff alleges that defendant Bonnet offered

false testimony at his parole hearing. If true, plaintiff would be entitled to

a new parole revocation hearing. Therefore, such an allegation of a

procedural defect is necessarily an attempt to challenge the substantive

decision to revoke parole. 

As to the municipal defendants, the court concluded that, while they were named in the caption

of the complaint, there were no specific allegations regarding such defendants. The court,

however, concluded that the complaint appeared to state a cognizable excessive force claim

against defendant Bonnet. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend to cure the defects

identified by the court.

Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Therefore, this action should

proceed as against defendant Bonnet only on plaintiff’s excessive force claim and the remaining

claims and defendants should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court will issue

separate orders regarding service of this action on defendant Bonnet. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Plaintiff’s claim regarding his parole revocation hearing be dismissed;

2. Plaintiff’s claims against the municipal defendants (Stockton Police

Department, the County of San Joaquin, and chief of police Mark W. Herder) be dismissed; and

3. This action proceed only on plaintiff’s excessive force claim against

defendant Bonnet.

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 ten days

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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Case 2:06-cv-00027-FCD-CMK Document 14 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

DATED: June 20, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00027-FCD-CMK Document 14 Filed 06/21/06 Page 3 of 3