Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00457-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER BRANDON DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. PORTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00457 ADA-CDB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Plaintiff Christopher Brandon Davis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

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

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 10, 2023, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 19.) The Court found 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 12) stated the following cognizable claims: (1) First 

Amendment retaliation claims against Defendant Portillo (claims one & four) and Defendant 

Brown (claim three); (2) an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Portillo 

(claim two); (3) an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Molina (claim 

one); and (4) a due process clause violation against Defendant Brown (claim three). (Doc. 19 at 4-

20.) However, the Court found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint failed to state any other 

cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id. at 20.) Plaintiff was given 21 days to elect one 

of the following options: (1) to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified 

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 22 Filed 04/25/23 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

in the order; (2) to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found 

cognizable by the Court; or (3) to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 21.) 

On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Response to First Screening Order.” 

(See Doc. 21.) Plaintiff advises he does not wish to file a second amended complaint and is 

willing to proceed on the claims found cognizable by the Court in its First Screening Order. (Id.). 

II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s First Screening Order (Doc. 19), 

the Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action PROCEED on the following: (a) First Amendment retaliation claims 

against Defendant Portillo (claims one & four) and Defendant Brown (claim three); 

(b) an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Portillo (claim 

two); (c) an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Molina 

(claim one); and (d) a due process clause violation against Defendant Brown (claim 

three), in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and

2. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be DISMISSED. 

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

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

service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the 

Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 

rights 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: April 25, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 22 Filed 04/25/23 Page 2 of 2