(PC) Howell v. Gallagher ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 KAREEM J. HOWELL, Case No. 1:19-cv-00673-EPG 9 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS 11 v. AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED J. GALLAGHER, et al., 12 (ECF NOS. 1 & 9) Defendants. 13 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 14 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 15 DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 Kareem J. Howell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on May 16, 2019, (ECF No. 1.) The 21 Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 9.) The Court found that only the following 22 claims should proceed past the screening stage: “retaliation in violation of the First Amendment 23 against Defendant J. Burnes; conspiracy to retaliate in violation of the First Amendment against 24 Defendants J. Burnes, J. Gallagher, and A. Randolph; failure to protect in violation of the Eighth 25 Amendment against Defendants J. Burnes, J. Gallagher, and A. Randolph; and harassment in 26 violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant J. Burnes.” (Id. at 2.) 27 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found 28 cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the 1 | complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent 2 | with the screening order. (/d.) On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants 3 || to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the screening order. (ECF No. 10.) 4 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 5 | November 7, 2019 (ECF No. 9.), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 6 || proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 10.), it is HEREBY 7 | RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiffs claims for g || retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendant J. Burnes; conspiracy to g | retaliate in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants J. Burnes, J. Gallagher, and A. 10 | Randolph; failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants J. Burnes, 11 | J. Gallagher, and A. Randolph; and harassment in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 12 | Defendant J. Burnes. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 14 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 15 | (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 16 || objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate judge’s 17 | Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 18 || specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 19 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 | Dated: _ November 21, 2019 [see hy □ 73 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28