(PC) Wilson v. Ramos

Opinion

LUCIOUS WILSON, No. 2:23-CV-0977-DJC-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RAMOS, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1. On July 24, 2023, the Court issued an order addressing the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s complaint. See ECF No. 9. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Ramos, Singh, and Duran arising from a cell extraction at the California Medical Facility on April 19, 2023. See id. The Court also determined that Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendant Ramos based on threats and failure to provide medical care, as well as Plaintiff’s claim against the prison warden, Defendant Cueva, are insufficient. See id. Plaintiff was provided leave to amend and cautioned that, if no amended complaint was filed within the 30-day time period provided therefor, the action would proceed on Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against Defendants Ramos, Singh, and Duran, and that the Court would recommend that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. As of November 2, 2023, and after having been granted an extension of time, Plaintiff had not filed an amended complaint and the Court directed service on Defendants Ramos, Singh, and Duran consistent with the July 24, 2023, order. See ECF No. 12. The Court now recommends dismissal of all remaining claims and defendants. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends as follows: 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, as to □□□□□□□□□□□ Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Ramos, Singh, and Duran. 2. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Ramos based on threats and failure to provide medical care be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 3. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Cueva be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: January 11,2024 Co 7] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE