(PC) Madrid v. Anglea ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEJANDRO MADRID, Case No. 1:19-cv-01456-NONE-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS AND 13 v. DEFENDANTS 14 H. ANGLEA, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 14, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that it 18 states cognizable claims against Defendant Anglea in his individual capacity, but not against 19 Defendants Toubeaux or Voong. (Doc. 12.) The Court further found that the complaint’s equal 20 protection, retaliation, and official-capacity claims were not cognizable. (Id.) The Court therefore 21 directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading or to 22 notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (Id. at 11-12.) 23 On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice “that he wishes to proceed only on the 24 claims found cognizable by the court.” (Doc. 15.) Therefore, the Court issued findings and 25 recommendations, recommending that Defendants Toubeaux and Voong be dismissed, and that 26 Plaintiff’s non-cognizable claims be dismissed. (Doc. 17.) 27 Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 20.) The Court interpreted Plaintiff’s objections as indicating that he did not intend to dismiss the claims the 1 Court had found incognizable, and thus it withdrew its findings and recommendations and 2 directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 21.) 3 On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response to the order, stating that he 4 “misinterpreted” the Court’s screening order, and that he “reasserts that he wishes to proceed only 5 on the claims found cognizable by the Court against Defendant Anglea.” (Doc. 23.) Accordingly, 6 and for the reasons set forth in its screening order (Doc. 12), the Court RECOMMENDS that: 7 1. Defendants Toubeaux and Voong be DISMISSED; and, 8 2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Toubeaux and Voong and his equal 9 protection, retaliation, and official-capacity claims be DISMISSED. 10 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 11 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of 12 the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 13 with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 14 and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver 15 of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 16 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: November 17, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27