Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00818/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00818-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVONTE B. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00818-ADA-CDB (PC) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

14-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Devonte B. Harris is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On November 7, 2022, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found 

that it states cognizable claims of excessive force against Defendants Arden, Gamboa, Garcia, 

Pasillas and Perez, and of retaliation against Defendants Arden, Gamboa, Garcia and Pasillas. 

(Doc. 11.) The Court therefore directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint curing the 

deficiencies in his pleading or to notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims 

found cognizable. (Id. at 12.)

On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice that he elects “to proceed on the claims 

[the Court] found cognizable in the first screening order.” (Doc. 12.) Accordingly, and for the 

reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 11), the Court RECOMMENDS that:

//

Case 1:21-cv-00818-KES-CDB Document 13 Filed 12/02/22 Page 1 of 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

2

1. Defendants M. Boersma and Ken Clark be DISMISSED; and,

2. The claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be DISMISSED, except for its 

claims of excessive force against Defendants Arden, Gamboa, Garcia, Pasillas and 

Perez, and retaliation against Defendants Arden, Gamboa, Garcia and Pasillas, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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 14 days of 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.” 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)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2022 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00818-KES-CDB Document 13 Filed 12/02/22 Page 2 of 2