Micah Tafari Keyes-Anderson v. A. Chapa, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 26, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00077
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICAH TAFARI KEYES-ANDERSON, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00077-SKO 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 13 v. DEFENDANTS FOLLOWING SCREENING

14 A. CHAPA, et al., 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

15 Defendants. Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

17 Plaintiff Micah Tafari Keyes-Anderson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On September 29, 2025, the Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 10.) It found 21 Plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Chapa, 22 Luna, Salazar, Aguilar, Gamboa-Campos, Bravo-Rodriguez, Valero, and Cruz but failed to state 23 any other claims against any other named defendant. (Id. at 3-9.) Plaintiff was directed to do one 24 of the following within 21 days: (1) notify the Court he did not wish to file a first amended 25 complaint and instead was willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment excessive force 26 claims against Defendants Chapa, Luna, Salazar, Aguilar, Gamboa-Campos, Bravo-Rodriguez, 27 Valero, and Cruz, the remaining claims to be dismissed; or (2) file a first amended complaint 1 (Id. at 10-11.) 2 On November 12, 2025, the Court issued its Order Directing Clerk of the Court to Re- 3 Serve First Screening Order and Order Directing Plaintiff to Respond to the First Screening Order 4 Within 21 Days.1 (Doc. 11.) 5 On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a timely notice indicating his wish to proceed only 6 on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (See Doc. 12.) 7 II. ORDERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district 9 judge to this action. Additionally, the Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to add “C. 10 Valero” as a defendant to the docket for this action. 11 Finally, for the reasons given above, the Court RECOMMENDS that: 12 1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 13 against Defendants Chapa, Luna, Salazar, Aguilar, Gamboa-Campos, Bravo- 14 Rodriguez, Valero, and Cruz; 15 2. Defendants D. Diaz and J. Escutia be DISMISSED from this action; and 16 3. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 19 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 20 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 21 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages 22 without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to 23 the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference 24 the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 25 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation 26 may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations 27 1 The screening order was returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Undeliverable, Refused, Return to Sender, Unable to Forward” on October 22, 2025. However, Plaintiff’s address had not changed. 1 under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time 2 may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 3 Cir. 2014). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 Dated: November 25, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7

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