(PC) Howell v. Randolph ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM J. HOWELL, Case No. 1:19-cv-0735-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS 13 v. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 14 A. RANDOLPH, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE; AND 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 17 DISMISS NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS 18 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 19 20 Plaintiff’s complaint was recently screened and found to state a cognizable First 21 Amendment retaliation claim against Correctional Officers at California State Prison in Corcoran, 22 California (“CSP-Cor”) Rodriguez, Randolph, and Burnes, and a cognizable Fourteenth 23 Amendment Due Process claim against Rodriguez and Randolph. No other claims were cognizable 24 as pled. Plaintiff was then directed to file a notice as to whether he wished to proceed on his 25 complaint as screened, to stand on his complaint, or to file an amended complaint. He has now 26 filed a notice of his intent to proceed on the complaint as screened. (Doc. 11.) Accordingly, the 27 Court ORDERS: 28 1. The Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this case; 1 2. Service shall be initiated on the following defendants: 2 J. BURNES – Correctional Officer at CSP-Cor 3 P. RODRIGUEZ – Correctional Officer at CSP-Cor 4 A. RANDOLPH – Correctional Officer at CSP-Cor 5 3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, three summonses, a 6 Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the 7 complaint filed May 24, 2019; 8 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return to the 9 Court the Notice of Submission of Documents along with the following documents: 10 a. One completed summons for each defendant listed above, 11 b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above, 12 c. Four copies of the endorsed complaint filed May 24, 2019; 13 5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 14 Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court shall direct the United 15 States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure 4 without payment of costs; 17 6. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the action be 18 dismissed; and 19 The Court RECOMMENDS that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this 20 action. 21 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 23 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 24 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 25 Findings and Recommendations.” 26 /// 27 28 1 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 2 the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 3 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: February 25, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28