(PC) Hunter v. Williams ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAROLD HUNTER, No. 2:19-cv-1101 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GABRIEL WILLIAMS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed June 3, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and he was given the 18 option to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment claims against defendant Do-Williams 19 for moving him to an upper tier, taking away his wheelchair, and denying his request for a 20 mobility vest and walker, or to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 6 at 10.) Plaintiff notified the 21 court that he wanted to amend the complaint, (ECF No. 7), and was given thirty days to file an 22 amended complaint (ECF No. 8). He was advised that if he failed to file an amended complaint 23 the case would proceed on the original complaint, as screened, and it would be recommended that 24 the non-cognizable claims against Do-Williams and all claims against defendants Williams, 25 Gonzales, Battle, Adams, Halepota, Malakkla, Mansour, Cole, Kaur, Richardson, Infante, Porras, 26 Nava, Recarey, Gail, Paik, Lowe, and Gu be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff was then 27 granted two, sixty-day extensions of time to file his amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 12, 15.) The 28 time for filing an amended complaint has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended 1 | complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 3 | assign a United States District Judge to this action. 4 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, as set forth in the June 3, 2020 screening order: 5 1. This action proceed on the Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference 6 | against defendant Do-Williams on the grounds that she had him moved to an upper tier, took 7 | away his wheelchair, and denied his requests for a mobility vest and walker. 8 2. Plaintiff's other claims against Do-Williams and all claims against defendants 9 | Williams, Gonzales, Battle, Adams, Halepota, Malakkla, Mansour, Cole, Kaur, Richardson, 10 | Infante, Porras, Nava, Recarey, Gail, Paik, Lowe, and Gu be dismissed without prejudice for 11 | failure to state a claim. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 14 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 15 | with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 16 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 17 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 18 | (9th Cir. 1991). 19 | Dated: December 8, 2020 bh rdf /f [ { gt 20 CAROLYN K DELANEY 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 13:hunt1 101.fta 24 25 26 27 28