1 2 3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 JORDAN TUCKER Case No. 1:24-cv-01566-KES-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 THAT (1) THIS CASE PROCEED ONLY v. ON PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AMENDMENT 12 CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT DE LA ARMANDO DE LA CRUZ, CRUZ BASED ON THE OCTOBER 20, 13 2023, CELL SEARCH AND PLAINTIFF’S Defendant. EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST 14 DEFENDANT DE LA CRUZ FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE BASED ON THE 15 JULY 12, 2023 INCIDENT; AND (2) ALL OF OTHER CLAIMS BE DISMISSED 16 (ECF Nos. 1, 12) 17

18 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS 19 20 Plaintiff Jordan Tucker is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 21 this civil rights action filed under

. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed the compliant 22 commencing this action on December 20, 2024, which alleges he had several incidents with 23 Correctional Officer Armando De La Cruz that Plaintiff claims violated his constitutional 24 rights. (ECF No. 1). 25 On October 8, 2025, the Court screened the complaint, concluding that Plaintiff 26 sufficiently stated claims against Defendant De La Cruz under the Fourth Amendment for an 27 October 20, 2023 cell search and the Eighth Amendment for excessive force based on a July 28 12, 2023 incident. (ECF No. 12). The Court also explained why the complaint failed to state 1 || any other cognizable claims. The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either file (1) a notice to 2 || proceed on these claims, (2) a first amended complaint; or (3) a notice to stand on his complaint 3 |] and have it reviewed by a district judge. (/d. at 9-10). 4 On October 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Notice re: Screening Order,” stating that Plaintiff 5 || is “wishes to proceed only on Plaintiffs [sic] Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force base 6 |} [sic] on July 12, 2023 and the Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Armando De La 7 || Cruz base [sic] on the October 20, 2023 cell search. These are the only two claims that Plaintiff 8 || wishes to proceed with.” (ECF No. 13 at 2). 9 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 10 || October 8, 2025 CECF No. 12), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court of the claims he 11 || wishes to proceed on (ECF No. 13 at 2), IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. This case proceed on Plaintiffs claims against Defendant De La Cruz under the 13 Fourth Amendment for an October 20, 2023 cell search and the Eighth 14 Amendment for excessive for based on a July 12, 2023 incident; and 15 2. All other claims be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 16 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 17 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title

(b)(1). Within 18 || thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 19 || written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 20 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 15 21 || pages, including exhibits. 22 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 23 || the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014) 24 || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 |! Dated: _ October 30, 2025 [Je hey 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28