(PC) Howell v. Do Canto ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM J. HOWELL, 1:19-cv-00854-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 13 vs. PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT M. DO CANTO FOR 14 DO CANTO, et al., RETALIATION UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THAT ALL OTHER 15 Defendants. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 17 18 19 Kareem J. Howell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 21 commencing this action on June 19, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) 22 The Complaint names as defendants Correctional Officer M. Do Canto, Sergeant M. 23 Mason, and Lieutenant C. Munoz, and brings medical claims, retaliation claims, supervisory 24 liability claims, state law claims, and a claim for submitting a false disciplinary report. 25 The court screened the Complaint and found that it states a cognizable claim under the 26 First Amendment against defendant M. Do Canto for retaliation, but no other claims upon which 27 relief may be granted. (ECF No. 11.) On August 21, 2020, the court issued a screening order 28 requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a First Amended Complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is 1 willing to proceed only with the retaliation claim against defendant Do Canto found cognizable 2 by the court. (Id.) 3 On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with 4 the retaliation claim against defendant M. Do Canto found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 5 12.) 6 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Correctional 8 Officer M. Do Canto for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 9 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 10 3. Plaintiff’s medical claims, supervisory liability claims, state law claims, and claim 11 for submitting a false disciplinary report be dismissed from this action based on 12 Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; 13 4. Defendants Sergeant M. Mason, and Lieutenant C. Munoz be dismissed from this 14 action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which 15 relief may be granted; and 16 5. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 17 including initiation of service of process. 18 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 19 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 21 may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 22 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 23 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 24 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: September 8, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28