(PC) Sosa v. CSATF Warden ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE LUIS SOSA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01333-EPG 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS 13 v. AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 14 CSATF WARDEN, (ECF NOS. 1 & 9.) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 16 FOURTEEN DAYS 17 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN TO DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 Jorge Luis Sosa (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 20 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on September 10, 2019, (ECF No. 1.) 22 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 9.) The Court found that only the following 23 claims should proceed past the screening stage: “claims against Defendant Correctional Officer 24 Housse and Does 1-3 for violation of the Eighth Amendment for excessive force and sexual 25 assault, as well as retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.” (Id. at 2.) 26 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found 27 cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the 28 1 | complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent 2 | with the screening order. (/d.) On December 4, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants to 3 || 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 12, 2019 (ECF No. 12.), 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 Plaintiff's claims for g | violation of the Eighth Amendment for excessive force and sexual assault and First Amendment g | retaliation against Defendant Correctional Officer Housse and Does 1-3. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 11 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 12 | C14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 13 || objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate judge’s 14 | Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 15 || specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 16 | 838-39 (th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: _ December 5, 2019 [sf ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28