(PC) Jones v. C.D.C.R. et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EUGENE JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CDCR, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01298 KES BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
Doc. 39
Eugene Jones is a state prisoner who asserts he suffered violations of his civil rights while
housed at Wasco State Prison. See Doc. 35. The magistrate judge screened the second amended
complaint and found Jones stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Correctional
Officer Borrego for excessive force and Correctional Officer Hurd for failure to protect. Doc. 39
at 4-5. However, the magistrate judge found the other claims – including related to the failure to
house Jones at a particular institution and a request for injunctive relief – were not cognizable. Id.
at 5-6. The magistrate judge recommended that the action proceed only on the identified claims
against Borrego and Hurd, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed for failure to
state a claim. Id. at 7.
The court served the findings and recommendations on Jones and informed him that any
objections were due within 14 days. Doc. 39 at 7. After receiving an extension of time, Jones
filed a timely response on January 26, 2026. Doc. 43. Jones indicates he is “agreeing with the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
judge to proceed forward” with the claims against Borrego and Hurd and to drop his claims
against the other defendants. Id. at 1. Jones also requests the court forward all documents he
previously submitted ‘to the next judge overseeing this action” because he does not have access to
his legal property following a prison transfer. Id.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this court performed a de novo review of this
case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
supported by the record and by proper analysis. With respect to the request that the court transfer
evidence “to the next judge,” Jones is informed that a reassignment to another judge is not
anticipated in this matter. Should any such reassignment occur, however, the court maintains an
electronic file that would be transferred to the appropriate docket.
Based upon the foregoing, the court ORDERS:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 19, 2025 (Doc. 39) are
ADOPTED in full.
2. This action SHALL proceed only on the following Eighth Amendment claims in
the second amended complaint: (a) excessive force against Defendant Borrego,
and (b) failure to protect against Defendant Hurd.
3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action for failure to
state claims upon which relief may be granted.
4. This action is referred to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this
order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2026
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE