1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOVAN R. GUILLORY, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01336 JLT SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, et al., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROCEED AGAINST DEFNDANT 15 Defendants. ALCANTOR

16 (Docs. 19, 20)

17 Plaintiff alleges he suffered violations of his civil rights while housed at Kern Valley State 18 Prison. (Doc. 18.) Previously, the Court screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint and found he 19 stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Alcantor for excessive force in violation of the 20 Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 15.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend to cure the 21 deficiencies identified related to his other causes of action, but also informed Plaintiff that he 22 could choose to proceed only on the cognizable claim. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a second amended 23 complaint (Doc. 18), after which he filed a request to proceed on the claim against Alcantor (Doc. 24 19.) The magistrate judge screened the SAC, and again found Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim 25 against Alcantar for excessive force. (Doc. 20 at 5-7.) However, the magistrate judge found 26 Plaintiff failed to state claims for against any other defendants, including claims for deliberate 27 indifference and due process. (Id. at 7-12.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 2 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 20 at 13.) The Court advised him that the “failure 3 | to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” 4 | Ud. at 13-14, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did 5 | not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 6 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 7 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 8 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 22, 2025 (Doc. 20) are 10 ADOPTED in full. 11 2. Plaintiffs request to proceed on the claim against Alcantar (Doc. 19) is 12 GRANTED. 13 3. This action PROCEEDS only on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force 14 claim against Defendant Alcantar. 15 4. All other claims in the second amended complaint are DISMISSED. 16 5, Defendants Christian Pfeiffer, E. Stark, and N. Montanez are DISMISSED from 17 the action. 18 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket and terminate Christian 19 Pfeiffer, E. Stark, and N. Montanez as defendants. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _September 17, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28