Sexton

(PC) Washington v. Sexton

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 5, 20211:18-cv-00513California3,983 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMIEN WASHINGTON, Case No. 1:18-cv-00513-DAD-JLT (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

v. CHALLENGING EXHAUSTION OF

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; GRANT

M.SEXTON, et al., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE

Defendants. EXHAUSTION; AND DISMISS THE CASE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

16 (Docs. 62, 64) 17 14-DAY DEADLINE 18 In its first screening order, the Court found that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims: (1) First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Vera, (2) an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Vera, (3) an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against John Doe 1, and (4) an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Defendants Vera, Tinero, and John Doe 1. (Docs. 16, 23.) The Court found the remaining claims non-cognizable as pleaded. Id. Plaintiff elected to proceed only on the cognizable claims rather than filing an amended complaint. (Doc.…

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.