Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582-2/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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION

PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS

SHERWOOD AND COONTZ FOR 

EXCESSIVE FORCE, AGAINST 

DEFENDANT COONTZ FOR FAILURE TO 

PROTECT, AND AGAINST DEFENDANT 

SHERWOOD FOR RETALIATION, AND

THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS

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.

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

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 14 Filed 03/18/14 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

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.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed against defendants Sherwood and Coontz for use of 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against defendant Coontz 

for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against 

defendant Sherwood for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;

3. Plaintiff’s claims for inadequate medical care be dismissed from this action 

based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;

and

4. Defendants Lieutenant A. Smith and Registered Nurse N. Gray be dismissed 

from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief 

may be granted against them.

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 

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to 

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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