Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00179/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00179-8/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

CARL FOUST,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLEN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-00179-DAD-DMC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

(Doc. No. 26)

Plaintiff Carl Foust is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 July 25, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 

concluded that plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim for excessive use of force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment against defendants I. Perez, M. Strange, and Godinez, but that plaintiff had 

failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 10.) The magistrate judge granted plaintiff 

leave to file a first amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the screening 

order within thirty (30) days of the date of that screening order and warned plaintiff that “if no 

amended complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the Court will issue findings and 

recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed . . . .” (Id. at 5.) 

Case 2:23-cv-00179-DAD-DMC Document 70 Filed 12/02/24 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

Plaintiff did not file a first amended complaint. Accordingly, on January 12, 2024, the magistrate 

judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed only on the 

claims found to be cognizable in the screening order and that all other claims and defendants be 

dismissed from this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 26.)

The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 

2.) Plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations on January 29, 2024. 

(Doc. No. 28.) Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to decline to adopt the pending 

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 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 

objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 

record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 12, 2024 (Doc. No. 26) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim asserted against 

defendants I. Perez, M. Strange, and Godinez;

3. All other claims brought by plaintiff in this action are dismissed with prejudice;

4. Defendant Allen is dismissed as a defendant in this action;

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendant 

Allen has been terminated from this action; and

6. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings 

consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00179-DAD-DMC Document 70 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 2