(PC) Patterson v. Howard ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN D. PATTERSON, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00751-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 13 v. ) RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION 14 MAURICE HOWARD, et al., ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. ) RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN ) CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 16 ) ) [ECF No. 9] 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Bryan D. Patterson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On July 2, 2020, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated 21 a cognizable free exercise claim under the First Amendment against Defendants Maurice Howard and 22 John Doe. (ECF No. 8.) However, Plaintiff was advised that he failed to state any other cognizable 23 claims. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff was advised that he could file an amended complaint or a notice of 24 intent to proceed on the claim found to be cognizable. (Id.) 25 On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating that he wishes to proceed on the claim 26 found to be cognizable in the screening order, and dismiss all other claims and Defendants. (ECF No. 27 9.) 28 /// wOAOe UVM ELAR SAR MUO, I Oe AY ee 1 Based on Plaintiff's notice, the Court will recommend that this action proceed against 2 || Defendants Maurice Howard and John Doe for violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First 3 |] Amendment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 4 || Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court 5 || will also recommend that Plaintiffs request to withdraw the first amended complaint filed on July 17 6 || 2020, be granted. 7 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall 8 randomly assign a Fresno District Judge to this action. 9 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 10 1. This action proceed against Defendants Maurice Howard and John Doe for violation of 11 the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; and 12 2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim fc 13 relief. 14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 15 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) days 16 || after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 17 || with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 18 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 19 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 20 || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe 23 lI pated: _ August 11, 2020 OF 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28