(PC)Saiz v. Putnam ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MARTIN SAIZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-01231-EPG (PC) 9 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 10 RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 11 DISMISSED PUTNAM and SCHRIEBER, 12 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN Defendants. FOURTEEN DAYS 13 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 14 DISTRICT JUDGE 15 Martin Saiz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 16 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 31, 2020. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened 18 Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 6). The Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint “states 19 cognizable claims against Defendants Putnam and Schrieber for (1) violating his due process 20 rights with respect to housing him in administrative segregation and (2) violating his First 21 Amendment rights by retaliating against him for his protected speech.” (Id. at 9-10). 22 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found 23 cognizable by the Court in the screening order or filing an amended the complaint. (Id. at 11). 24 On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claims 25 found cognizable in the screening order. (ECF No. 7). 26 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 27 October 26, 2020 (ECF No. 6), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 28 proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 7), it is HEREBY 1 |} RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiffs claims 2 || against Defendants Putnam and Schrieber for (1) violating his due process rights with respect to 3 || housing him in administrative segregation and (2) violating his First Amendment rights by 4 || retaliating against him for his protected speech 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen 7 || (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 8 || written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 9 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 10 |] objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson vy. 11 || Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 12 || (9th Cir. 1991)). 13 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 14 || judge to this case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘7 ll Dated: _ November 18, 2020 [Je hey 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28