(PC) Faultry v. Sanchez

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHARLES B. FAULTRY, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01033-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 13 v. ) RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION A. SANCHEZ, et.al., ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. ) RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN ) CLAIMS 16 ) ) [ECF Nos. 10, 13] 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Charles B. Faultry is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983.

20 On August 6, 2019, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendants A. Sanchez, B. Rodriguez, C. Perez, V. Maldonado, and G. Smith for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against E. Tindle for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 10.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of intent to proceed on the cognizable claims. (Id.) 25 On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable and dismiss all other claims and Defendants. (ECF No. 10.) Accordingly, the Court will recommend that this action proceed against Defendants A. Sanchez, B. Rodriguez, C. Perez, V. Maldonado, and G. Smith for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against E. Tindle || for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and all other claims for relief be || dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. || Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).

4 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. This action proceed against Defendants A. Sanchez, B. Rodriguez, C. Perez, V. 6 Maldonado, and G. Smith for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, 7 and against E. Tindle for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 8 2. Plaintiff's state law claims and request for injunctive relief be dismissed; and 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action.

10 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) 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 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

18 || IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 (ee || Dated: _ August 21, 2019 OF 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE