Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00953/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00953-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD SPENCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCCORKLE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-0953 TLN CKD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. On September 25, 2023, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to 

do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found that plaintiff could proceed on the following 

claims:

1. Use of excessive force against defendant McCorkle; and

2. Failure to protect against defendant Anansev.

In the screening order, the court indicated that it was not clear whether the claims arise 

under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment as it was not clear whether plaintiff had been 

convicted of an offense at the time the incidents occurred. A review of California Court of 

Appeal records in Third Appellate District case numbers C094469 and C099550 reveals that 

plaintiff had been convicted of a crime at the time the incidents occurred and was in custody 

based on that conviction. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims arise under the Eighth Amendment.

Case 2:23-cv-00953-TLN-CKD Document 11 Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 4
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

In the September 25, 2023, order plaintiff was given two options: proceed on the claims 

identified above or file an amended complaint in an attempt to cure the deficiencies with respect 

to the other claims and defendants in the original complaint. Plaintiff was informed that failure to 

expressly choose an option would be construed as consent to dismiss the deficient claims and 

proceed only on the cognizable claims identified above. Plaintiff did not expressly choose an 

option.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREY ORDERED that:

1. Service of plaintiff’s complaint is appropriate for:

A. Deputy Corporal McCorkle, Sacramento County Main Jail; and 

B. Deputy Anansev, Sacramento County Mail Jail. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 2 USM-285 forms, one summons, an 

instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1 above; 

and 

d. Three copies of the complaint. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 

Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to 

serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs.

5. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants other than a claim 

arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendant McCorkle for use of excessive force and a 

/////

Case 2:23-cv-00953-TLN-CKD Document 11 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 4
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

3

claim arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Anansev for failure to protect be 

dismissed. 

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 fourteen days 

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

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 

Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 8, 2024

1

spen0953.8

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00953-TLN-CKD Document 11 Filed 01/09/24 Page 3 of 4
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 

GERALD SPENCE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MCCORKLE, et al. 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-0953 TLN CKD P 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS 

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order 

filed _____________________: 

 ______ completed summons form 

______ completed USM-285 forms 

______ copies of the May 22, 2023, Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff 

Case 2:23-cv-00953-TLN-CKD Document 11 Filed 01/09/24 Page 4 of 4