# (PC) Rice v. Castellanos

> District Court, E.D. California · June 2, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11063848

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 2, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11063848

## Opinion text

1
2
3

4

5

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9
KORDY RICE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01008-KES-EPG (PC)
10
Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11 THAT THIS CASE PROCEED ONLY ON
v. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS: (1) EXCESSIVE
12 USE OF FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE
E. CATELLANOS, et al., EIGHTH AMENDMENT AGAINST
13 DEFENDANTS CASTELLANOS AND E.
Defendants. RAMIREZ; (2) FOR FAILURE TO
14 PROTECT IN VIOLATION OF THE
EIGHTH AMENDMENT AGAINST
15 DEFENDANT ROBB; AND (3) FOR
VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE
16 PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS
17 BROWN, ARREOLA, AND ROBB

18
(ECF NOS. 1, 13, 14)
19
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 30
20 DAYS

21
22 Plaintiff Kordy Rice proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
23 filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1, 6). Generally, Plaintiff alleges that prison officials
24 used excessive force against him, failed to protect him from the use of excessive force, and
25 denied him due process in connection with a prison disciplinary proceeding.
26 On March 11, 2025, the Court screened the complaint, concluding that Plaintiff
27 sufficiently stated claims (1) for excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment
28 against Defendants Castellanos and E. Ramirez; (2) for failure to protect in violation of the
1 || Eighth Amendment against Defendant Robb; and (3) for violation of his Fourteenth
2 |; Amendment right to due process against Defendants Brown, Arreola, and Robb. The Court
3 || explained why the complaint otherwise failed to state any claims and gave Plaintiff thirty days
4 || to either file (1) a notice to go forward on his cognizable claims, (2) an amended complaint; or
5 a notice to stand on his complaint and have it reviewed by a district judge.
6 On April 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he wants to proceed only on the
7 || claims that the Court found cognizable. (ECF No. 14).
8 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on
9 || March 11, 2025 (ECF No. 13), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to
10 || proceed on the claims that the Court found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 14), IT IS
11 |] RECOMMENDED that all claims and Defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiffs claims
12 || (1) for excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants
13 || Castellanos and E. Ramirez; (2) for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment
14 || against Defendant Robb; and (3) for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due
15 || process against Defendants Brown, Arreola, and Robb.
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 28 U.S.C. § 636(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. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
22 || time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39
23 |} (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
|| Dated: _ June 2, 2025 [Je heey ——
26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11063848. Public record. Not legal advice.