Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00056/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00056-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

RICK HAZELTINE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRANCES HICKS, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-00056 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 

WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ON 

COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

[ECF No. 10]

Plaintiff Rick Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on January 15, 2014.

On January 30, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that it stated the 

following claim: Excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 

Young, Gamez, Casper, Oldan, Negrete, Avilia, Smith, and Ho. The Court ordered Plaintiff to 

file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on this claim.

On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wanted to proceed only on the 

cognizable claim identified above. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS the following:

1. This action be ORDERED to proceed on the following claim: Excessive force in 

Case 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA Document 11 Filed 03/03/15 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

violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Ian Young, Benjamin Gamez, Rashaun 

Casper, Julius Oldan, Porfirio Sanchez Negrete, David Avilia, Rickey Smith, and Charles Ho; 

and 

2. The remaining claims, as well as Defendants Frances Hicks and Aldo Mendez, 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)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA Document 11 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 2