Burns

(PC) Jaramillo v. Burns

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 12, 20241:23-cv-00666California413 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RUDIE JARAMILLO, Case No.: 1:23-cv-0666 JLT CDB Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

v. CERTAIN DEFENDANTS, AND DIRECTING

THE CLERK OF COURT TO UPDATE THE

JOSEPH BURNES, et al., DOCKET

Defendants. (Doc. 18)

16 Rudie Jaramillo seeks to hold the defendants liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for Eighth Amendment excessive force and First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Barrett, Bartolo, Burnes, Garcia, Hernandez, Rodriguez, and Ruiz. (Doc. 18 at 4-10.) However, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not state cognizable claims against J. Contreras and R. Villanueva-Garcia. (Id. at 8, 9-10.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss Contreras and Villanueva-Garcia as defendants and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.