(PC) Howell v. Rangel ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM J. HOWELL, No. 2:21-cv-954-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. BYRD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 5, 2021, the court informed plaintiff that he could proceed 19 with a First Amendment retaliation claim and an Eighth Amendment denial of exercise claim 20 against defendant Rangel, or he could file an amended complaint in an effort to also state claims 21 against defendants Byrd, Heath, Briggs, Houston, Juarez, Perey, Juarez, Labao, and Stephenson. 22 ECF No. 8. Plaintiff has elected not to amend his complaint and to proceed only with the claims 23 identified by the court. ECF No. 11. 24 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United 25 States District Judge to this action. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ] Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's claims against defendants Byrd, Heath, 2 || Briggs, Houston, Juarez, Perey, Juarez, Labao, and Stephenson be dismissed without prejudice. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 8 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 9 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 || Dated: August 20, 2021. tid, PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN V2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28