Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582-4/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

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

ALEJANDRO JOSE MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

H. SHERWOOD, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01582-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF MARCH 18, 2014

(Doc. 14.)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO EITHER:

 (1) FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, 

 OR

 (2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE IS

 WILLING TO PROCEED ONLY

 AGAINST DEFENDANTS SHERWOOD

 AND COONTZ FOR EXCESSIVE

 FORCE, DEFENDANT COONTZ FOR

 FAILURE TO PROTECT, AND 

 DEFENDANT SHERWOOD FOR 

 RETALIATION, AND TO DISMISS ALL

 OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

 FROM THIS ACTION

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

I. BACKGROUND

Alejandro Jose Morales (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on October 1, 2013. (Doc. 1.) The case now proceeds on the First 

Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 2, 2013. (Doc. 9.) The First Amended 

Complaint names Correctional Officer H. Sherwood, C/O G. Coontz, Lieutenant A. Smith, and

Registered Nurse N. Gray as defendants, and alleges claims for excessive force, failure to 

protect, inadequate medical care, and retaliation.

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 18 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 3
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

The court screened Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A 

and found that it states cognizable claims under § 1983 against defendants Sherwood and 

Coontz for excessive force, against defendant Coontz for failure to protect, and against 

defendant Sherwood for retaliation, and that the First Amended Complaint states no other 

cognizable claims. (Doc. 12.) On March 5, 2014, Plaintiff was granted leave to either file an 

amended complaint or notify the court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found 

cognizable by the court. (Id.) On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the court

that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable claims against defendants Sherwood and 

Coontz, and he does not wish to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 13.)

In response to Plaintiff’s notice, the court entered findings and recommendations on 

March 18, 2014, recommending that this action proceed only on the cognizable claims found 

by the court against defendants Sherwood and Coontz, and that all other claims and defendants

be dismissed. (Doc. 14.) On March 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations, arguing that he did not agree to dismiss his claim for inadequate medical 

claim. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff claims he can prove that the institution was aware of a specific 

harm and that RN L. Gilera disregarded that harm.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff did not name RN L. Gilera as a defendant in the First Amended Complaint. 

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot proceed with the First Amended Complaint against RN L. Gilera. 

To proceed against RN L. Gilera, Plaintiff must file a Second Amended Complaint containing

all of the claims and defendants he wishes to proceed wtih, including his allegations and claims 

against RN L. Gilera. The Second Amended Complaint will supercede the First Amended 

Complaint, and therefore, before service can go forward, the court will be required to screen the 

Second Amended Complaint to determine if Plaintiff states any cognizable claims. 

Based on Plaintiff’s objections, the findings and recommendations of March 18, 2014 

shall be vacated. Plaintiff shall be granted time to either file a Second Amended Complaint, or 

notify the court that he is willing to proceed with the First Amended Complaint only against 

defendants Sherwood and Coontz for excessive force, against defendant Coontz for failure to 

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 18 Filed 03/31/14 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

protect, and against defendant Sherwood for retaliation, and to dismiss all other claims and 

defendants from this action.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations entered on March 18, 2014, are VACATED;

2. The Clerk=s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall 

either:

(1) File a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies in the First 

Amended Complaint identified in the court’s order of March 5, 2014, or

(2) Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended 

complaint and is instead willing to proceed only against defendants 

Sherwood and Coontz for excessive force, against defendant Coontz for 

failure to protect, and against defendant Sherwood for retaliation, and to 

dismiss all other claims and defendants from this action; 

4. Should Plaintiff choose to amend the complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint ASecond Amended Complaint@ and refer to the case number 

1:13-cv-01582-AWI-GSA-PC; and

5. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for 

failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 18 Filed 03/31/14 Page 3 of 3