Baughman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SIDNEY PETILLO, No. 2:19-CV-0667-TLN-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. AMENDED HAINEY, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 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 motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 60. Defendants oppose granting summary judgment. ECF No. 61. The undersigned United States Magistrate Judge recommends denying the motion. 21 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff’s motion is insubstantial. Plaintiff merely states that he initiated the present action because of excessive force and an unconstitutional search and seizure. Id. at 1. Plaintiff states that the Court told him that he would be deposed but “no statute initiatives has been taken by the court.” Id. 1–2. He then requests judgment be entered in his favor and asks the Court to notify Defendants…