Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Wendell Coleman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple defendants, including Wallace and others. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 for findings and recommendations.
The procedural history reflects multiple rounds of screening. On August 29, 2025, the plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. He filed a first amended complaint on October 29, 2025. In a February 25, 2026 order, Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney dismissed that first amended complaint for failure to state a claim, citing illegible handwriting, vague and conclusory allegations, failure to allege an affirmative link between each defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation, and failure to plead a causal connection for the retaliation claim. Judge Delaney granted the plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint.
On July 8, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 32), which were served on Plaintiff with notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the time to do so has elapsed.
The Court’s Holding
The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, presuming findings of fact to be correct under Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979), and reviewing conclusions of law de novo under Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court found the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and the magistrate judge's analysis.
Accordingly, the court adopted the findings and recommendations in full. All claims were dismissed except for a claim arising under the Eighth Amendment for excessive force against Defendant Sgt. Martin. The order was signed on October 15, 2026, by Chief United States District Judge Troy L. Nunley and filed on October 16, 2026.
Following the dismissal order, on October 20, 2026, Magistrate Judge Delaney issued an order referring the case to the court's Post-screening ADR Project and staying the action for 120 days to allow the parties to investigate the remaining excessive force claim, meet and confer, and participate in a settlement conference. The stay prohibits formal discovery but permits informal discovery.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full after the plaintiff failed to file timely objections within the fourteen-day period.
- All claims in the prisoner's § 1983 action were dismissed except for an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Sgt. Martin; the order does not establish liability on that claim.
- The court applied the standard of review presuming factual findings correct and reviewing legal conclusions de novo.
- The February 2026 screening order dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend for pleading deficiencies, but those deficiencies were addressed in the second amended complaint and are not the basis for the October dismissals.
- The case was subsequently referred to alternative dispute resolution and stayed for 120 days to allow settlement discussions on the surviving excessive force claim.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the procedural consequence of a pro se prisoner's failure to object to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations within the prescribed time period. The court's adoption of the recommendations without detailed independent analysis of each claim reflects the deference given to unchallenged magistrate judge reports. The survival of only the excessive force claim against Sgt. Martin narrows the case significantly, focusing future litigation on a single constitutional claim against a single defendant.
The companion orders provide important context. The February 2026 screening order shows the magistrate judge's detailed guidance on pleading standards for prisoner civil rights claims, including the requirements for alleging an affirmative link between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation, and the prohibition on joining unrelated claims under Rule 20. The October 2026 ADR referral order demonstrates the Eastern District of California's practice of referring post-screening prisoner civil rights cases to alternative dispute resolution before formal discovery begins, reflecting an effort to resolve such cases more expeditiously and less expensively.