(PC) Howell v. Camargo ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM J. HOWELL, 1:19-cv-00266-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF PROCEED ONLY ON 13 v. CLAIM I AGAINST DEFENDANTS BARONA, CAMARGO, MORROW, MUNOZ, 14 A. CAMARGO, et al., RANDOLPH, AND SAUCEDO AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 15 Defendants. BE DISMISSED (Docs. 1, 9) 16 17 14-DAY DEADLINE 18 Clerk of Court to Assign a District Judge 19 20 21 Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 22 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 14, 2019, the Court issued a 23 screening order finding that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for retaliation in Claim I of his 24 complaint, (Doc. 1), against Defendants A. Barona, A. Camargo, C. Morrow, C. Munoz, A. 25 Randolph, and D. Saucedo. (Doc. 9.) The Court found that the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims 26 were deficient. Id. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the 27 deficiencies or, in the alternative, to notify the Court that he wishes to proceed solely on the 28 1 claims found cognizable. Id. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file his response within 21 days and indicated that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this action proceed only on 2 the claims found cognizable by the Court. Id. 3 Although more than two months have passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended 4 complaint or to otherwise respond to the Court’s order. Thus, this action should proceed solely on 5 Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation against Defendants Barona, Camargo, Morrow, Munoz, Randolph, and 6 Saucedo, as found cognizable in the Court’s screening order. 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 8 It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that, based on the foregoing and for the reasons 9 stated in the August 14, 2019, screening order, Plaintiff be allowed to proceed solely on his 10 retaliation claims found cognizable in Claim I of his complaint against Defendants A. Barona, A. 11 Camargo, C. Morrow, C. Munoz, A. Randolph, and D. Saucedo, and that all other claims and 12 defendants be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a 13 District Judge to this action. 14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 16 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 17 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 18 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time 19 may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 20 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Sheila K. Oberto 24 Dated: October 17, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28