Arredondo

(PC) Falls v. Arredondo

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 2, 20201:19-cv-00441California358 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID FALLS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00441-NONE-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND

v.

DEFENDANTS

A. ARREDONDO, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 16 On August 26, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and found that it states a cognizable claim of excessive force against A. Arredondo in his individual capacity, but that all other claims are not cognizable. (Doc. 10 at 11.) The Court therefore directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in its order or notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only the claim of excessive force. (Id.; see also Doc. 21.) On March 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice that he “wish[es] to proceed only on the cognizable claim determined by the Court against Defendant A. Arredondo.” (Doc. 23.) Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 10), the Court RECOMMENDS that: …

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.