Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01093/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01093-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO A. VALENZUELA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTIESTEBAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01093-NONE-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

(Doc. No. 11)

Plaintiff Mario A. Valenzuela is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

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

On August 20, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 

found that plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against defendants Santiesteban, Rodriguez, and 

Alejo for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment for the incident on June 22, 2019 

and a cognizable claim against defendant Perez for failing to protect against the alleged excessive 

force by Santiesteban, Rodriguez, and Alejo for the incident on June 22, 2019 in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims or properly joined claims 

against any other defendants. The magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to either file a first amended 

complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (Doc. 

No. 6.) On September 29, 2020, plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed on the 

cognizable claims identified by the court. (Doc. No. 9.)

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 13 Filed 10/21/20 Page 1 of 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

2

Accordingly, on October 1, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s complaint against 

defendants Santiesteban, Rodriguez, and Alejo for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment and defendant Perez for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

arising from the incident on June 22, 2019. (Doc. No. 11.) The magistrate judge further 

recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on 

plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted or failure to properly join 

claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18. (Id.) 

On October 13, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of clarification. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff’s 

notice states that although he notified the court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable 

claims regarding the June 22, 2019 incident, he would still like to file the improperly joined 

claims individually on a later date. (Id.) This clarification does not require or even request any 

adjustment to the conclusions set forth in the findings and recommendations. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s notice 

of clarification, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 

and by proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 1, 2020, (Doc. No. 11), are 

adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s complaint, filed August 6, 2020, (Doc. No. 11), 

against defendants Santiesteban, Rodriguez, and Alejo for excessive force in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment and defendant Perez for failure to protect in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment arising from the incident on June 22, 2019;

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state 

claims upon which relief may be granted or failure to properly join claims pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18; and

/////

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 13 Filed 10/21/20 Page 2 of 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

3

4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 13 Filed 10/21/20 Page 3 of 3