Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00155/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00155-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-00155-NONE-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. Nos. 1, 10, 12)

John Williams (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On February 8, 2021, plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint against defendants. (Doc. No. 

1.) On April 12, 2021, plaintiff provided the court with notice that he was electing to proceed 

only on the claims found cognizable by the court’s April 1, 2021 screening order. (Doc No. 11.) 

On April 14, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge therefore entered findings and

recommendations, recommending “that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Oaks; Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment failure to protect claim against defendant Pascoe; Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

sexual assault claim against defendant Oaks; and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for 

/////

Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 25 Filed 07/13/21 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

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against defendants Oaks, Pascoe, Riddle, 

Beer, Garcia, and Cubos.” (Doc. No. 12 at 2–3) (footnote omitted.) 

Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations. On April 26, 2021, plaintiff filed his objections. (Doc. No. 15.) Specifically, 

plaintiff objected to the recommendation that his excessive force claim against defendant Pascoe 

be dismissed. Id. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Plaintiff’s objection to the recommended dismissal of the excessive force claim against defendant 

Pascoe is without merit.

An excessive force claim requires that a defendant actually use force against the plaintiff. 

See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992). Here, plaintiff has not alleged that defendant 

Pascoe made forceful contact with him; instead, plaintiff describes defendant Pascoe as a 

“lookout” who failed to intervene when defendant Oaks unlawfully struck the plaintiff. As such, 

plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient only for a failure to protect claim against defendant Pascoe.1

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 14, 2021, (Doc. No. 12,) are 

adopted in full;

2. All claims and defendants are dismissed,2except for plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claim against defendant Oaks; plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

failure to protect claim against defendant Pascoe; plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

sexual assault claim against defendant Oaks; and plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against defendants 

1

 Plaintiff also objects to the dismissal of his failure to protect claim against defendant Pascoe, 

but the magistrate judge did not recommend that this claim be dismissed. The court agrees that 

the failure to protect claim against defendant Pascoe is sufficiently pled at this stage.

2 Plaintiff’s cover-up claim is dismissed without prejudice. All other claims that are being 

dismissed are dismissed with prejudice.

Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 25 Filed 07/13/21 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

Oaks, Pascoe, Riddle, Beer, Garcia, and Cubos; and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendant M. Gamboa

from this action on the court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2021 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 25 Filed 07/13/21 Page 3 of 3