Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01412/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01412-5/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

MICHAEL MANJEET SINGH, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

WARDEN PHEIFFER, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01412-ADA-EPG (PC)

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 

DISMISSED

(ECF Nos. 9 & 28).

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

FOURTEEN DAYS 

Michael Manjeet Singh (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on May 27, 2022. (ECF No. 9). 

The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 28). The Court found that only the 

following claims should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims 

for excessive force against Defendants Veith and Fowler, Eight Amendment claims for failure 

to protect and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendants Veith, 

Fowler, and Diaz, and state law claims for negligent failure to protect and failure to summon 

medical care against Defendants Veith, Fowler, and Diaz. (Id., p. 2).

The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either: “a. File a First Amended Complaint; b. 

Notify the Court that he wants to proceed only on claims against Defendants Veith, Fowler, and 

Diaz identified in this order; or c. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his 

Case 1:22-cv-01412-KES-EPG Document 37 Filed 10/11/23 Page 1 of 2
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

complaint.” (Id. at 17-18). On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice that he wants to 

proceed only on the claims that the Court found should proceed past screening. (ECF No. 34).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 

April 3, 2023 (ECF No. 28), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 

proceed only on the claims that the Court found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 34), it 

is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force against Defendants Veith and Fowler; 

Eight Amendment claim for failure to protect against Defendants Veith, Fowler, and Diaz; 

Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against 

Defendants Veith, Fowler, and Diaz; state law tort claim for negligent failure to protect against 

Defendants Veith, Fowler, and Diaz; and state law claim for failure to summon medical care in 

violation of California Government Code §§ 845.6 and 844 against Defendants Veith, Fowler, 

and Diaz.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 

judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01412-KES-EPG Document 37 Filed 10/11/23 Page 2 of 2