Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00768/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00768-14/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

LAKEITH L. MCCOY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

A. HOLGUIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00768-DAD-MJS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIM

(Doc. No. 93.)

Plaintiff Lakeith McCoy is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 19, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint (Doc. No. 15) and found that plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claims against defendants Casillas, Holguin, Moore, King, Lomas, Gonzales, A. 

Martinez, Delgado, Barron, Montanez, Mayfield, and Moreno, and cognizable failure to intervene 

claims against defendants Arellano, Deluna, C. Martinez, Bennet, Holland, Kilmer, Lomas, and 

Santa Maria. (Doc. No. 17.) However, the magistrate judge dismissed plaintiff’s claim for 

injunctive relief.

On February 23, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 95 Filed 03/20/18 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

500 (9th Cir. 2017), had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims 

with prejudice in screening prisoner complaints even if a plaintiff has consented to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction, as plaintiff did here, where all defendants, including those not yet appearing in 

the action, have not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 93.) Concurrently, the 

magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s claims 

previously found to be non-cognizable in the initial screening order be dismissed. (Id.) The 

parties were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id.) 

The parties did not file any objections, and the time in which to do so has now expired.

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

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of the case. The undersigned concludes the findings 

and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 23, 2018 (Doc. No. 93) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is dismissed with prejudice;

3. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against 

defendants Casillas, Holguin, Moore, King, Lomas, Gonzales, A. Martinez, Delgado, 

Barron, Montanez, Mayfield and Moreno and his failure to intervene claims against 

defendants Arellano, Deluna, C. Martinez, Bennett, Holland, Kilmer, Lomas and Santa 

Marias.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2018 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 95 Filed 03/20/18 Page 2 of 2