(PC) Ruiz v. Clark ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 GEORGE RUIZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00893-EPG (PC) 9 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 10 RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 11 DISMISSED KEN CLARK, et al., 12 (ECF NOS. 1 & 8) Defendants. 13 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 14 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 15 DISTRICT JUDGE 16 George Ruiz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 29, 2020. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened 19 Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 8). The Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint “states 20 cognizable claims against (1) Defendants Ken Clark, D. Baughman, S. Alfaro, G. Jaime, J. 21 Gallaghar and P. Llamas for (a) unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the 22 Eighth Amendment and (b) discriminatory treatment on account of Plaintiff’s race in violation 23 of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to being placed on a 24 lockdown, a modified program, and reducing his privileges, and (2) Defendants Ken Clark, D. 25 Baughman, and J. Gallaghar for preferentially treating black inmates classified as STG Bloods 26 and STG Crips as compared to Plaintiff on account of his race in violation of the Equal 27 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff has failed to state any other claims.” 28 (Id. at 26). 1 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found 2 cognizable by the Court in the screening order or filing an amended the complaint. (Id. at 27- 3 28). On September 21, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the 4 claims found cognizable in the screening order. (ECF No. 9). 5 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 6 September 2, 2020 (ECF No. 16), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 7 proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 9), it is HEREBY 8 RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s claims 9 against (1) Defendants Ken Clark, D. Baughman, S. Alfaro, G. Jaime, J. Gallaghar and P. 10 Llamas for (a) unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth 11 Amendment and (b) discriminatory treatment on account of Plaintiff’s race in violation of the 12 Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to being placed on a 13 lockdown, a modified program, and reducing his privileges, and (2) Defendants Ken Clark, D. 14 Baughman, and J. Gallaghar for preferentially treating black inmates classified as STG Bloods 15 and STG Crips as compared to Plaintiff on account of his race in violation of the Equal 16 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 19 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 20 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 21 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 22 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 23 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 24 (9th Cir. 1991)). 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ wOAOe 4 OU MMU PIO Vee TOY VM VI 1 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 2 || Judge to this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. > ll Dated: _ September 23, 2020 hey 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28