Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01628/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01628-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Campbell
Defendant
Cohen
Defendant
Z. Dean
Defendant
I. Lopez
Defendant
Lamont Shepard
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMONT SHEPARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. COHEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01628-OWW-GSA PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED ON CLAIMS FOUND

COGNIZABLE BE GRANTED

(Doc. 9) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION

PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS

COHEN, LOPEZ, CAMPBELL, AND DEAN

FOR VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS TO DUE

PROCESS AND ALL OTHER CLAIMS BE

DISMISSED

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Lamont Shepard, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 15, 2009. (Doc. 1.) The complaint

names C.M.O. Dr. Cohen, Sergeant I. Lopez, Correctional Officer J. Campbell, Correctional Officer

Z. Dean, and Jane Doe as defendants and alleges violations under the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment, use of excessive physical force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and

assault and battery under California law.

The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it

states cognizable claims for relief under section 1983 against Defendants Cohen, Lopez, Campbell,

Dean, and Jane Doe for violation of his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

1

Case 1:09-cv-01628-OWW -GBC Document 11 Filed 03/10/10 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

Amendment. On February 25, 2010, Plaintiff was given leave to either file a first amended

complaint, or in the alternative, to notify the Court that he does not wish to file a first amended

complaint and instead wishes to proceed only on the claims identified by the Court as

viable/cognizable in the Court’s order. (Doc. 7.) On March 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed written notice

to the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 9.) 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to be allowed to proceed on claims found cognizable, filed on

March 4, 2010 be GRANTED;

2. This action proceed against Defendants Cohen, Lopez, Campbell, and Dean only on 1

Plaintiff’s claims for violation of his rights under the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment; and

3. All remaining claims be dismissed from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

objections with the Court. The 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 9, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Marshal cannot initiate service on a Doe defendant. Plaintiff may amend once he

1

ascertains the identity of Jane Doe. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999).

2

Case 1:09-cv-01628-OWW -GBC Document 11 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 2