Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00628/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00628-1/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

KEVIN LEWIS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAN QUINTO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00628-CDB (PC) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS STATE LAW CLAIM

(Doc. 1)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS 

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Docs. 13, 14, 16)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Kevin Lewis, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. Dismissal of State Law Claim

On July 7, 2023, the Court screened the complaint and found it states a cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim for use of excessive force against Defendants Quinto, Gilbert, Brown, and 

Hernandez, Correctional Officers (“COs”) at North Kern State Prison; and a claim for failure to 

protect against COs Brown and Hernandez. (Doc. 15.) The Court further found the complaint 

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 19 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 4
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

fails to state a claim under California law because Plaintiff did not allege compliance with the 

California Government Claims Act. (Id.) (citing Cal. Const. art. I § 17; Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 910, 

911.2, 945.4). The Court granted plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint curing the 

deficiencies identified in the screening order or written notice that he wishes to forego 

amendment and stand on his complaint as screened. (Id.)

On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against the same Defendants. 

(Doc. 17.) However, the pleading did not cure the deficiencies identified in the screening order

pertaining to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the California Government Claims Act. Instead, it 

made significant omissions, including all allegations against COs Brown and Hernandez. (Id.) 

The Court liberally construes this pleading as an election to proceed on the original complaint as 

screened rather than an intent to abandon his claims against these two defendants. Therefore, this 

action proceeds on the complaint as screened, and the Court recommends dismissal of the state 

law claim against all defendants for failure to state a claim. (Docs. 1, 17.)

II. Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment based on Defendants’ use of excessive 

force without a cooling down period and use of pepper spray without a review of medical records 

by nursing staff. 

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party “shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue 

of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). The moving party may 

accomplish this by presenting evidence that negates an essential element of the non-moving 

party’s case. Id. Alternatively, the movant can demonstrate that the non-moving party cannot 

produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim that must be proven at trial. Id.; 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the 

non-moving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 

322–23.

Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants were served with summonses on May 22, 2022, but 

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 19 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 4
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

failed to respond to the complaint within ninety days. (Doc. 16 at 1.) However, this assertion is 

incorrect. Plaintiff filed this action on May 18, 2022, and the complaint could not have been 

served on Defendants. Only in the instant Findings and Recommendations has the Court 

determined the which pleading is the operative complaint. At this pre-service stage of the 

proceedings, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and 

that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

III. Default Judgment

Plaintiff has filed two motions for default judgment against Defendants for failure to 

respond to summonses. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides: “When a party against 

whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that 

failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

55(a). Before a default will be entered, the clerk must be satisfied from the request and 

accompanying documentation that: 1) the defendant has been served with the summons or has 

agreed to waive serve; 2) the time allowed by law for responding has expired; and 3) the 

defendant has failed to file a pleading or motion permitted by law. U.S. ex rel. Felix Haro Const., 

Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1770156, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2009) 

(citing Hawaii Carpenters’ Trust Funds v. Stone, 794 F.2d 508, 512 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also 

Chambers v. Knight, 2019 WL 1923936, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2019) (“A default may not 

enter against a defendant unless the plaintiff has properly served the defendant.”).

Because Defendants have not been served with summonses or had an opportunity to 

respond to the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to default judgment. 

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

1. The Court DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s state law claim raised under 

the California Constitution against all Defendants (see Doc. 15);

2. DENY Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 13); and

3. DENY Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Docs. 14, 16).

///

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 19 Filed 08/14/23 Page 3 of 4
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

4

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days from 

the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be titled, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a District Judge to this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 19 Filed 08/14/23 Page 4 of 4