(PC) Jones v. Pfeiffer ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DYRELL WAYNE JONES, No. 1:19-cv-00396-DAD-JDP 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. THAT PLAINTIFF BE PERMITTED TO PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND 14 M. PITCHFORD, et al., THAT NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 16 17 Plaintiff Dyrell Wayne Jones is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 18 rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 27, 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s 19 first amended complaint and found that plaintiff stated the following claims against defendants 20 Walinga and Pitchford: (1) Free Exercise claims, (2) claims under the Religious Land Use and 21 Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), and (3) Equal Protection claims. See ECF No. 18. 22 The court gave plaintiff three options: (1) proceed only on the claims found cognizable, (2) 23 amend the complaint to add additional facts to make out additional claims or claims against 24 additional defendants, or (3) stand on the current complaint subject to dismissal of claims and 25 defendants. On July 12, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice indicating his willingness to proceed only 26 on the claims identified as cognizable. ECF No. 19. Therefore, we recommend that his 27 remaining claims be dismissed without prejudice. 28 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), all parties named in a civil action must consent to a 3 | magistrate judge’s jurisdiction before that jurisdiction vests for “dispositive decisions.” Williams 4 | v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). No defendant has appeared or consented to a 5 | magistrate judge’s jurisdiction in this case, so any dismissal of a claim requires an order from a 6 | district judge. /d. Thus, the undersigned submits the following findings and recommendations 7 | under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1): 8 1. Plaintiff states cognizable First Amendment, RLUIPA, and Equal Protection claims 9 against defendants Walinga and Pitchford. 10 2. Plaintiff's remaining claims should be dismissed without prejudice. 11 Within fourteen (14) days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may 12 | file written objections with the court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so ina 13 || document captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 14 | Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver 15 | of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 16 | Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( Caan Dated: _ August 2, 2019 20 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 No. 205. 24 25 26 27 28