Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01215/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01215-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Lewis
Defendant
Lawrence Lopez
Defendant
James Henry Rodriguez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES HENRY RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01215-LJO-BAM-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT DEFENDANT LOPEZ BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE 

GRANTED

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff, a Fresno County Jail inmate, brings this action against Fresno County Sheriff’s 

Deputies Christopher Lewis and Lawrence Lopez. Plaintiff claims he was subjected to excessive 

force. On December 30, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff 

stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Lewis for excessive force. Plaintiff failed to state a 

claim against Defendant Lopez. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009); Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 

(9th Cir. 2010). The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint curing the 

deficiencies identified or notify the Court that he is willing to proceed only on his cognizable 

claims. On January 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he does not intend to amend and 

is willing to proceed only on the claims found by the Court to be cognizable. 

In the December 30, 2015 order, the Court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his

complaint regarding Defendant Lopez, and granted Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended 

Case 1:15-cv-01215-LJO-BAM Document 17 Filed 01/11/16 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

complaint that corrects the deficiencies identified as to Defendant Lopez. Because Plaintiff has 

filed a notice indicating his desire to proceed against Defendant Lewis only, the Court 

recommends dismissal of Defendant Lopez for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which the 

Court could grant relief. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007)(pro se litigant 

must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the 

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 

F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal with prejudice upheld where court had instructed 

plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim with leave to amend). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Deputy Lopez be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Within 

FOURTEEN days after being served with 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 result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 77 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan), 923 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1991))

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01215-LJO-BAM Document 17 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 2