The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 BOBBY E. BROWN, 1:21-cv-00087-GSA-PC
12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY
ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT
13 vs. JUDGE TO THIS CASE
14 MARROQUIN, et al., AND
15 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE
16 PROCEED ONLY WITH PLAINTIFF’S
EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS AGAINST
17 DEFENDANTS C/O MARROQUIN, C/O
CAMPBELL, C/O CHAVEZ, AND C/O
18 POMPA; AND ADA CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS C/O MARROQUIN AND
19 SERGEANT ESPINOSA; THAT ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
20 DISMISSED; AND THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
21 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED AS
MOOT
22
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
23 FOURTEEN DAYS
24
25 I. FINDINGS
26 Bobby E. Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights
27 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
28 January 21, 2021. (ECF No. 1.)
1 The Complaint names as defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) Otto Marroquin, C/O
2 Dorius Campbell, C/O D. Chavez, C/O M. Pompa, Sergeant M. Espinosa, John Doe (Medical
3 Personnel, Psy Tech), and Christian Pfeiffer (Warden, KVSP) (collectively, “Defendants”), and
4 brings claims for use of excessive force, failure to intervene, violation of the ADA, minimizing
5 Plaintiff’s injuries as minor, and false reports. Plaintiff also brings a motion for preliminary
6 injunctive relief in the Complaint.
7 The court screened the Complaint and found that it states cognizable claims for use of
8 excessive force against Defendants C/O Marroquin, C/O Campbell, C/O Chavez, and C/O
9 Pompa; and for violation of the ADA against Defendants C/O Marroquin and Sergeant Espinosa.
10 (ECF No. 9.) The court also found that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief
11 should be denied as moot. (Id.) On November 28, 2022, the court issued a screening order
12 requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a First Amended Complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is
13 willing to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court. (Id.)
14 On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with
15 the claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 10.)
16 II. ORDER, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk randomly assign a United
18 States District Judge to this case.
19 AND
20 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
21 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s cognizable claims for use of excessive
22 force against Defendants C/O Marroquin, C/O Campbell, C/O Chavez, and C/O
23 Pompa; and for violation of the ADA against Defendants C/O Marroquin and
24 Sergeant Espinosa;
25 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;
26 3. Plaintiff’s claims for failure to intervene, for false reports, and for minimizing
27 Plaintiff’s injuries be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to
28 state any claims upon which relief may be granted;
1 4. Defendants John Doe (Medical Personnel, Psy Tech) and Christian Pfeiffer
2 (Warden, KVSP) be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state
3 any claims against them upon which relief may be granted;
4 5. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied as moot; and
5 6. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,
6 including initiation of service of process.
7 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
9 fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff
10 may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
11 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
12 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
13 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16 Dated: December 15, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28