(PC) Lamon v. Pfeiffer ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00896-AWI-SAB (PC) 9 ) Plaintiff, ) 10 ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. ) RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 11 CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS C. PFEIFFER, et.al., ) 12 ) (ECF Nos. 22, 23) ) Defendants. 13 ) ) 14 15 Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 16 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On October 20, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that 18 Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for retaliation against Defendants Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, 19 Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach and Velasco, 20 separate cognizable claims for failure to protect against Defendants Corona, Loera, Ramirez, Eaker, 21 Luna Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Ronquillo, Luna, Rivera-Sierra and Clare, a cognizable Bane 22 Act claim against Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, 23 Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco, and a cognizable intentional infliction of 24 emotional distress claim against Defendants Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, 25 Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco. (ECF No. 22.) 26 Plaintiff was granted the opportunity to file a second amended complaint or notify the Court of his 27 intent to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. (Id.) 28 /// 1 On October 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the claims found to be 2 cognizable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 3 || Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff's separate claims for retaliation against Defendants 6 || Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, 7 || Bennett-Beach and Velasco, separate claims for failure to protect against Defendants Corona, Loera, 8 || Ramirez, Eaker, Luna Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Ronquillo, Luna, Rivera-Sierra and Clare, 9 || Bane Act claim against Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera- 10 || Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco, and intentional infliction of 11 || emotional distress claim against Defendants Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, 12 || Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco; and 13 2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim 14 || for relief. 15 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 16 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) days 17 || after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 18 || with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 19 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 20 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 21 || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 23 ||} IT IS SO ORDERED. A (re 24 lI pated: _ October 30, 2020 OF 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28