Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01536/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01536-2/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

EDWARD TORRES, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JAYSON QUICK, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01536-EPG (PC)

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 

DISMISSED

(ECF Nos. 1 & 13)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

FOURTEEN DAYS 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 

DISTRICT JUDGE

Edward Torres (“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, which includes state law claims.

1

 

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on November 30, 2022. (ECF No. 

1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 13). The Court found that only the 

following claims should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claims against defendants Quick, Garza, Garcia, Valadez, Prince, and Martinez; 

his Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against defendants Quick, Garza, Garcia, 

Valadez, Prince, and Martinez; and his Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Ontiveros 

for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. (Id.).

1 While Plaintiff is a state prisoner, the incidents alleged in the complaint occurred at Madera County Jail.

Case 1:22-cv-01536-KES-EPG Document 18 Filed 04/19/23 Page 1 of 3
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

The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either: “a. File a First Amended Complaint; b. 

Notify the Court in writing that he does not want to file an amended complaint and instead 

wants to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants 

Quick, Garza, Garcia, Valadez, Prince, and Martinez; his Eighth Amendment failure to protect 

claims against defendants Quick, Garza, Garcia, Valadez, Prince, and Martinez; and his Eighth 

Amendment claim against defendant Ontiveros for deliberate indifference to his serious 

medical needs; or c. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his complaint.” (Id.

at 18). On April 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice that he wants to proceed only on the claims 

that the Court found should proceed past screening. (ECF No. 14).

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

March 27, 2023 (ECF No. 13), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 

proceed only on the claims that the Court found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 14), it 

is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Quick, Garza, Garcia, 

Valadez, Prince, and Martinez; his Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against 

defendants Quick, Garza, Garcia, Valadez, Prince, and Martinez; and his Eighth Amendment 

claim against defendant Ontiveros for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.

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)(1). 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)). 

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 1:22-cv-01536-KES-EPG Document 18 Filed 04/19/23 Page 2 of 3
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

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

judge to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01536-KES-EPG Document 18 Filed 04/19/23 Page 3 of 3