(PC) Green v. Batchelor ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LIFALFA GREEN, No. 2:19-cv-0538-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MARY BATCHELOR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 10, 2020, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint had 19 alleged, for screening purposes, a viable First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant 20 Batchelor, but had not alleged any viable claims against defendants Myers, Difuntorum, 21 Bayoneta, August, or Moreno. ECF No. 12. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed with 22 the claim against defendant Batchelor or file an amended complaint within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff 23 has elected to proceed only with the claim against defendant Batchelor. See ECF No. 15. 24 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United 25 States District Judge to this case. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 1 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's claims against defendants Myers, 2 | Difuntorum, Bayoneta, August, and Moreno be dismissed without prejudice. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 8 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 9 | Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 | Dated: April 13, 2020. tid, PDEA 2 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28