1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAUREECE SIMPKINS, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00249-SKO 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 13 v. DEFENDANTS FOLLOWING SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 14 ARMANDO DELACRUZ, et al., 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 15 Defendants. Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 16

17 Plaintiff Maureece Simpkins is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On November 26, 2025, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 11.) It found 21 Plaintiff plausibly alleged the following claims: Eighth Amendment excessive force against 22 Defendants Delacruz and Escobedo; Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious 23 medical needs against Defendant Policarpio, and Eighth Amendment failure to protect against 24 Defendants Hightower and Moreno-Guillen; the undersigned further found Plaintiff failed to 25 allege any other cognizable claim against any other named Defendant. (Id. at 4-11.) Plaintiff was 26 ordered to do one of the following within 21 days: (1) notify the Court in writing that he did not 27 wish to file a first amended complaint and was willing to proceed only on the cognizable claims 1 the deficiencies identified in the screening order; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 2 11-13.) 3 On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice to proceed on cognizable claims. (Doc. 12.) 4 II. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 6 district judge to this action. 7 Further, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 8 1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 9 against Defendants Delacruz and Escobedo, Eighth Amendment deliberate 10 indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Policarpio, and Eighth 11 Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendants Hightower and Moreno- 12 Guillen; 13 2. Defendants Robert Cesena, Alexis Russell, Sheila Avalos, Carlos Urrutia, Michael 14 Rients, Aaron Medina, and Hunberto Ochoa be DISMISSED from this action; and 15 3. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 17 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(l). Within 14 days 18 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 19 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 20 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages 21 without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to 22 the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference 23 the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 24 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation 25 may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations 26 under

(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time 27 // 1 may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th 2 Cir. 2014). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: December 17, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27