Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06527/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06527-2/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

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

CHARLES JAMES MAULDN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O NASON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06527 LJO YNP GSA (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 22, 2010, the court issued an order finding that

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint stated cognizable claims against Defendants Nason and

Vargas for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but did not state any claims

against Defendant Butts. The court ordered Plaintiff to either file a third amended complaint or

notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. On March

9, 2010, Plaintiff notified the court that he does not wish to amend and is willing to proceed on the

claims found cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, this Finding and Recommendation nowissues.

See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of th

deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s June 26,2009, second amended complaint, , against

Defendants Nason and Vargas for excessive force violation of the Eighth

1

Case 1:04-cv-06527-LJO-MJS Document 30 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 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

Amendment;

2. Defendant Butts be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against

him.

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 thirty (30)

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 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 15, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:04-cv-06527-LJO-MJS Document 30 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2