(PC) Redix v. Navarro ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESAU REDIX, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01647-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 13 v. ) RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION 14 J. NAVARRO, et al., ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. ) RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN ) CLAIMS 16 ) ) (ECF Nos. 8, 9) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Esau Redix is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On January 5, 2021, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that he stated 21 cognizable excessive force claim against Defendants Navarro, Vera, Medina, Allison, and Higuera; a 22 cognizable claim for sexual assault against Defendant Vera; a cognizable claim against Defendants 23 Navarro and Allison for death threats; and a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to his medical 24 needs against Defendants Navarro, Gonzales, and Campos. (ECF No. 8.) However, Plaintiff was 25 advised that he failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff was advised that 26 he could file an amended complaint or a notice of intent to proceed on the claim found to be 27 cognizable. (Id.) 28 /// 1 On February 3, 2021, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the claims found 1 2 || be cognizable. (ECF No. 9.) Accordingly, the Court will recommend that this action proceed on 3 || Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Defendants Navarro, Vera, Medina, Allison, and Higuera, 4 || sexual assault claim against Defendant Vera, death threats claim against Defendants Navarro and 5 || Allison for death threats, and deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Navarro, Gonzales, an 6 ||Campos. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 7 || Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 8 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a District 9 || Judge to this action. 10 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 11 1. This action proceed against Defendants Navarro, Vera, Medina, Allison, and Higuera 12 for excessive force, against Defendant Vera for sexual assault, against Defendants 13 Navarro and Allison for death threats, and against Defendants Navarro, Gonzales, anc 14 Campos for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs; and 15 2. All other claims be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 17 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) days 18 || after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 19 || with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 20 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 21 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 22 || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 24 IS SO ORDERED. A (re 25 |! pated: _ February 4, 2021 OF 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28