Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00513/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00513-5/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

JAMIEN WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. SEXTON, Warden at California State 

Prison, Corcoran; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-0513-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIMS AND DENYING 

REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. Nos. 18, 20)

Plaintiff Jamien Washington is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

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

On January 18, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and found that 

plaintiff had stated the following cognizable claims: (1) a First Amendment retaliation claim 

against Correctional Officer (“CO”) Vera; (2) an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 

against CO Vera; (3) an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against John Doe 1; and (4) 

an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against CO Vera, CO Tinero, and John Doe 1. 

(Doc. No. 16 at 7.) The magistrate judge concluded that the complaint did not state any other 

cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff was granted leave to: 1) file an

amended complaint; 2) notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to 

Case 1:18-cv-00513-DAD-JLT Document 23 Filed 01/17/20 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

27

28

2

be cognizable in the screening order; or 3) stand on the complaint as written, subject to dismissal 

of claims and defendants. (Id. at 8–9.) On January 31, 2019, plaintiff notified the court of his 

willingness to proceed only on the claims identified by the magistrate judge as cognizable in the 

screening order. (Doc. No. 17.) 

Consequently, on February 15, 2019, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on the cognizable claims identified in 

the screening order and that the remaining claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 18.) 

On September 24, 2019, the magistrate judge further recommended that plaintiff’s September 3, 

2019 request for injunctive relief be denied due to it being directed at an individual who was not 

party to this action. (Doc. Nos. 19, 20.) Both findings and recommendations were served upon 

plaintiff by mailed at his address of record and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) No objections have been filed and the time 

in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 15, 2019 (Doc. No. 18) and 

September 24, 2019 (Doc. No. 20) are adopted in full; 

2. This action shall proceed on the following claims advanced by plaintiff: 

a. A First Amendment retaliation claim against CO Vera;

b. An Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against CO Vera;

c. An Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against John Doe 1;

d. An Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against CO Vera, CO 

Tinero, and John Doe 1; 

3. All remaining claims asserted and defendants named in the complaint are

dismissed due to failure to state a cognizable claim; 

Case 1:18-cv-00513-DAD-JLT Document 23 Filed 01/17/20 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

27

28

3

4. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is denied (Doc. No. 20); and

5. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00513-DAD-JLT Document 23 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 3