Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01619/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01619-0/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

RAHN GREGORY THOMPSON,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

PFEIFFER, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:20-cv-01619-GSA-PC

ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY 

ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE TO THIS CASE

 AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS 

ACTION PROCEED ONLY WITH THE 

EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS DOZER AND NAVA,

THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS

Rahn Gregory Thompson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff 

filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.)

The Complaint names 20 Defendants: (1) C. Pfeiffer (Warden); (2) Sergeant D. Stanley; 

(3) Sergeant D. Badger; (4) Sergeant S. Sargent; (5) Correctional Officer (C/O) D. Dozer; (6) 

Case 1:20-cv-01619-KES-GSA Document 13 Filed 04/20/22 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

C/O D. Nava; (7) C/O Rios; (8) C/O Hernandez; (9) C/O K. Martinaze; (10) A. Zepp (Medical 

Doctor); (11) T. Standon (Medical Doctor); (12) T. Kamen (Medical Doctor); (13) D. Stebbins 

(ADA Coordinator); (14) Sergeant Williams; (15) C/O Edmonson; (16) C/O Jacobe; (17) C/O 

Houlquin; (18) Sergeant R. Chanelo; (19) Sergeant M. Espinsa; and (20) Jamie (Warden) 

(collectively, “Defendants”), and brings claims for excessive force, failure to protect, denial of 

medical care, retaliation, improper prison appeals process, false disciplinary report, negligence, 

and violation of the ADA. (Id.) 

The court screened the Complaint and found that it states cognizable claims under the 

Eighth Amendment against defendants C/O Dozer and C/O Nava for use of excessive force, but 

no other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 10.) On March 20, 2022, the court issued a screening 

order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the 

claims found cognizable by the court, or (2) file a First Amended Complaint. (Id.) 

On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the 

claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 11.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims against defendants C/O Dozer and 

C/O Nava 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, denial of medical care, retaliation, 

improper prison appeals process, false disciplinary report, negligence, and 

violation of the ADA be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

state any claims upon which relief may be granted; 

4. Defendants Pfeiffer, Stanley, Badger, Sargent, Rios, Hernandez, Martinaze, 

Zepp, Standon, Kamen, Stebbins, Williams, Edmonson, Jacobe, Houlquin, 

Chanelo, Espinsa, and Jamie be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s 

failure to state any claims against them upon which relief may be granted; and

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

including initiation of service of process.

Case 1:20-cv-01619-KES-GSA Document 13 Filed 04/20/22 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

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: April 19, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01619-KES-GSA Document 13 Filed 04/20/22 Page 3 of 3