Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582-10/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

ALEJANDRO JOSE MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

H. SHERWOOD, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01582-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 31.)

ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO 

PROCEED WITH THE THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS SHERWOOD, 

COONTZ, AND FELIX FOR EXCESSIVE 

FORCE; AGAINST DEFENDANT 

SHERWOOD FOR RETALIATION; AND 

AGAINST DEFENDANT COONTZ FOR 

FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF; 

AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS 

AND DEFENDANTS FROM THIS 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM

Alejandro Jose Morales (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On April 15, 2015, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending 

that this action proceed with the with the Third Amended Complaint, against defendants 

Sherwood, Coontz, and Felix for use of excessive force under the Eighth Amendment; against 

defendant Sherwood for retaliation under the First Amendment; and against defendant Coontz 

for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and that all other claims 

and defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff was provided an 

opportunity to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations within thirty days. To 

date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the Findings and 

Recommendations.

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 32 Filed 05/29/15 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

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. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 15, 

2015, are ADOPTED in full;

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

3, 2014, against defendants Sherwood, Coontz, and Felix for use of excessive 

force under the Eighth Amendment; against defendant Sherwood for retaliation 

under the First Amendment; and against defendant Coontz for failure to protect 

Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

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

4. Plaintiff’s claims for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment, and 

for falsification of his disciplinary report under the Due Process Clause are 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983;

5. Defendants Gilera and Gray are dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s 

failure to state any claims against them;

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendants Gilera and 

Gray from this action on the court’s docket; and

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

including initiation of service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 32 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 2