Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01429-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
P. Actas
Defendant
Jim Cage
Plaintiff
E. Cortez
Defendant
A. Encinas
Defendant
A. Johnson
Defendant
R. Rogue
Defendant
J. Rojas
Defendant
J. Ward
Defendant

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

JIM CAGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-01429-CDB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO RENAME 

DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 11 AND TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Plaintiff Jim Cage is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On April 26, 2023, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 10.) The Court found 

Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Rojas, 

but his complaint failed to state any other cognizable claim against any other named defendant. 

(Id. at 3-8.) As a result, within 21 days of service of the screening order, Plaintiff was to elect one 

of the following three options: (1) to notify the Court in writing that he did not wish to file a first 

amended complaint and was willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment excessive force 

claim against Defendant Rojas with the remaining claims against any defendant to be dismissed; 

or (2) to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in its 

Case 1:22-cv-01429-CDB Document 13 Filed 08/04/23 Page 1 of 3
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

screening order; or (3) to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 11-12.) 

On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. 11.) However, upon 

review of the first amended complaint, it became apparent to the Court that Plaintiff has actually 

elected to notify the Court that he wishes to proceed on the claim found cognizable by the Court 

in its April 26, 2023 screening order. In so doing, Plaintiff used a blank amended complaint form 

to make his notification:

I would not wish to file a first amended complaint and am willing to 

proceed only on the Eight[h] Amendment excessive force claim 

against Defendant Rojas; the remaining claims against any other 

defendant to be dismissed.

(See Doc. 11 at 5 [V. Relief].) Although Plaintiff used the blank amended complaint form and the 

Clerk of the Court docketed the document as a “First Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint,” 

it is plain from the content of the filing that Plaintiff elects to proceed only on his claim against 

Defendant Rojas and understands his remaining claims and the other named defendants will be 

dismissed from this action. Hence, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to rename Docket 

Entry Number 11.

II. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS:

1. The Clerk of the Court to rename Docket Entry Number 11 from “First Amended 

Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint” to “Notice to Proceed on Cognizable Claim;” and

2. The Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district judge to this action.

Further, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s First Screening Order (Doc. 10), the 

Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 

against Defendant J. Rojas, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 

2. Defendants A. Johnson, E. Cortez, R. Rogue, A. Encinas, J. Ward and P. Actas be 

DISMISSED; and 

3. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED. 

//

Case 1:22-cv-01429-CDB Document 13 Filed 08/04/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the 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: August 4, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01429-CDB Document 13 Filed 08/04/23 Page 3 of 3