Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01649-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

BRANDON JAQUAY HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTIAN LEPE, et al.,

Defendants. 

_____________________________/

1:12-cv-01649-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN OF

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 

(ECF Nos. 10 & 12)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

Plaintiff Brandon Jaquay Holmes (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil

rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

On May 21, 2013, after reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court ordered Plaintiff

to either file another amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed

only on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Lepe. (ECF No.

10.) On June 3, 2013, Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to forgo an amended

complaint and proceed with his cognizable claim. (ECF No. 12.)

Accordingly, all claims in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint except for his Eighth

Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Lepe should now be dismissed.

-1-

Case 1:12-cv-01649-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 08/15/13 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

The Court hereby RECOMMENDS the following:

1. Plaintiff’s action proceed on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim

against Defendant Lepe;

2. Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim for seizure of property be DISMISSED

with prejudice;

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against unnamed individuals for not

allowing him to properly decontaminate after he was sprayed with pepper

spray be DISMISSED with prejudice;

4. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim be DISMISSED with prejudice;

5. Plaintiff’s claims under the Code of Federal Regulations be DISMISSED with

prejudice; and

6. Defendant Rios be DISMISSED from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations are 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,

any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such

a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Y1 st,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-01649-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 08/15/13 Page 2 of 2