Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615-16/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

JACQUES FEARANCE, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

L. L. SCHULTEIS, et al.,

 Defendants.

 1:08-cv-00615-LJO-GSA-PC

 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

 RECOMMENDATIONS

 (Doc. 65.)

ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO 

PROCEED ONLY AGAINST

DEFENDANTS HOPKINS AND BUSBY 

FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE, 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS HOPKINS, 

DAVIS, DUFFY, AND BECKETT FOR 

FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF, 

AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

HOPKINS, BUSBY, DAVIS, DUFFY, 

AND BECKETT FOR CONSPIRACY TO 

USE EXCESSIVE FORCE

ORDER DISMISSING ALL OTHER 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Jacques Fearance (APlaintiff@) is a state 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 1, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the Third Amended Complaint filed by 

Plaintiff on November 22, 2013. (Doc. 64.) The 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 6, 2013, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, 

recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Hopkins and Busby for use of 

excessive force; against defendants Hopkins, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for failure to protect 

Plaintiff; and against defendants Hopkins, Busby, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for conspiracy to 

use excessive force. (Doc. 65.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the 

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 67 Filed 01/14/14 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

Findings and Recommendations within thirty days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections 

or otherwise responded to the Findings and Recommendations.

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

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 

analysis. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

December 6, 2013, are ADOPTED in full;

2. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, filed on 

November 22, 2013, against defendants Hopkins and Busby for use of excessive 

force; against defendants Hopkins, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for failure to 

protect Plaintiff; and against defendants Hopkins, Busby, Davis, Duffy, and 

Beckett for conspiracy to use excessive force;

3. All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;

4. Plaintiff’s claims for verbal harassment and injunctive relief are dismissed from 

this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983; and

5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

including service of process upon defendant Beckett.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 67 Filed 01/14/14 Page 2 of 2