Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01700/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01700-1/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

RAUL CUENTAS, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

S. FRAUENHEIM, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01700-EPG (PC)

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 

DISMISSED

(ECF NOS. 1, 9, & 10)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

FOURTEEN DAYS 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 

DISTRICT JUDGE

Raul Cuentas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on November 26, 2019. (ECF No. 

1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 9). The Court found that only the 

following claim should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants 

R. Aleman, R. Ramos, J. Vega, C. Gallegos, Lt. Sanchez, Sgt. Acevedes, M. Castro, and M. 

Black for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.).

The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claim found 

cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the 

complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge 

consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 11). On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court 

that he wants to proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order. (ECF No. 

Case 1:19-cv-01700-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 05/04/20 Page 1 of 2
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

10).

1

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 

April 13, 2020 (ECF No. 9), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 

proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 10), it is 

HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s 

claim against Defendants R. Aleman, R. Ramos, J. Vega, C. Gallegos, Lt. Sanchez, Sgt. 

Acevedes, M. Castro, and M. Black for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

These 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)(l). Within

fourteen (14) 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 may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 

judge to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

In Plaintiff’s notice, Plaintiff requests clarification regarding whether he needs to file an amended 

complaint that only reflects the names of the defendants that he is proceeding against. The Court clarifies that 

Plaintiff does not need to file an amended complaint.

Case 1:19-cv-01700-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 2