Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00156/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00156-3/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

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

TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DAVID HICKS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:19-cv-00156-NONE-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE 

PROCEED ONLY AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS HICKS AND ROCHA FOR 

USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE IN 

VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH 

AMENDMENT, AND THAT ALL OTHER 

DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS BE 

DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

FOURTEEN DAYS

Tracye Benard Washington (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this 

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

1

 Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 

action on February 5, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint names as defendants Sergeant David 

Hicks and Correctional Officer Hipolito Rocha and brings claims for excessive force, failure to 

protect, violation of equal protection, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 

Rehabilitation Act, and violation of the Coleman v. Brown2consent decree.

 

1 On March 7, 2019, Plaintiff paid the $400.00 filing fee in full for this case. (Court Record.)

2 Coleman v. Brown, et al., 912 F.Supp 1282 (E.D. Cal., 1995).

Case 1:19-cv-00156-JLT-GSA Document 18 Filed 05/20/20 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

On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the 

excessive force claims against defendants Hicks and Rocha found cognizable by the court. (ECF 

No. 17.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Sergeant David 

Hicks and Correctional Officer Hipolito Rocha for use of excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment;

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

3. Plaintiff’s claims for failure to protect, violation of equal protection, violations of 

the ADA and RA, and violation of the Coleman v. Brown consent decree be 

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

which relief may be granted; and

4. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 

including initiation of service of process.

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 the date of service of 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: May 20, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00156-JLT-GSA Document 18 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 2