(PC) Ramsey v. Dickerson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BRANDON RAMSEY, 1:19-cv-00666-DAD-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AN RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE vs. PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS

JIMENEZ, DICKERSON, BORLINA, AND

C/O A. DICKERSON, et al., SANTIAGO FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE

FORCE AND DENIAL OF MEDICAL

Defendants. CARE UNDER THE EIGHTH

AMENDMENT, AND THAT ALL OTHER

DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS BE

DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 15.)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

David Brandon Ramsey (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action in the Sacramento Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On May 16, 2019, the case was transferred to this court. (ECF No. 5.)

On July 30, 2020, the court dismissed the Complaint for failure to include a request for relief in the Complaint in violation of Rule 8(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 12.) On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 15.) The First Amended Complaint names as defendants Sergeant A. Jimenez, Correctional Officer (C/O) A. Dickerson, C/O S. Borlina, C/O J. Santiago, and John Does #1 and #2 (CDCR peace officer staff) (collectively, “Defendants”).

The court screened the First Amended Complaint and issued an order on February 9, 2021, requiring Plaintiff to either (1) File Second Amended Complaint or (2) Notify the Court that he is willing to proceed only with the excessive force claims against Defendants Dickerson, Jimenez, Borlina, and Santiago found cognizable by the Court, and dismissing all other claims and defendants. (ECF No. 16.)

On April 2, 2021, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the claims in the First Amended Complaint found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 20.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff proceed in this case with his cognizable claims against defendants Sergeant A. Jimenez, C/O A. Dickerson, C/O S. Borlina, and C/O J. Santiago for use of excessive force and denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed from this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim;

3. Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation, ADA discrimination, state law claims, and attorney’s fees be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; 4. Plaintiff’s John Doe Defendants #1 and #2 be dismissed from this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them; and 5. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process.

These findings and recommendations are 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 fourteen (14) days after the date of service of 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 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)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE