Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01192/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01192-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO EDWIN LANIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. GONZALEZ, WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01192-GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS

AND DEFENDANTS FROM COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Ricardo Edwin Lanier, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 10, 2009. On December 24, 2009,

the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, and found that it states a claim against Defendants Beckner,

Rodriguez, and Papillion for violation of the Eighth Amendment arising out of the incident on May

22, 2009, but does not state any other claims for relief under section 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to

proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable by the Court. On January 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed

a notice stating that he does not wish to amend and is willing to proceed only against Defendants

Beckner, Rodriguez, and Papillion on his cognizable Eighth Amendment claim.

Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s notice, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action shall proceed as one for money damages on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed

July 10, 2009, against Defendants Beckner, Rodriguez, and Papillion for use of

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising out of the incident on

May 22, 2009;

1

Case 1:09-cv-01192-LJO-GSA Document 11 Filed 01/06/10 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’s verbal harassment claim and due process claim arising from the cell

extractions and escort on May 22, 2009, are dismissed for failure to state a claim

under section 1983;

3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Cox, Whitson, Gifford, Steadman, and

Gonzales are dismissed for failure to state a claim under section 1983; 

4. Defendants Cox, Whitson, Gifford, Steadman, and Gonzales are dismissed from this

action; and

5. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief and official capacity claims are dismissed for

failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 6, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01192-LJO-GSA Document 11 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 2