Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01654/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01654-0/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

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

Plaintiff Thomas John Heilman is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On December 11, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated 

a cognizable claim against Defendant Santos for excessive force and against Defendant P. Ruiz for 

retaliation. (ECF No. 15.) The Court granted Plaintiff the option to either file a first amended 

complaint or notify the Court in writing of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. 

(Id.)

On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the 

cognizable claims identified by the Court on December 11, 2019. (ECF No. 18.)

///

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

C. VISS, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01654-LJO-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

[ECF No. 18]

Case 1:19-cv-01654-DAD-SAB Document 19 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 3
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

Accordingly, the Court will recommend that this action proceed only against Defendant Santos 

for excessive force and against Defendant P. Ruiz for retaliation, and that all other claims and 

Defendants be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 

2010). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on August 7, 2019, (ECF No. 1), 

against Defendant Santos for excessive force and against Defendant P. Ruiz for 

retaliation; and

2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to state a 

cognizable claim for relief.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

after being served with 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.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” 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: January 17, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01654-DAD-SAB Document 19 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 1:19-cv-01654-DAD-SAB Document 19 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 3