(PC) Davis v. Mendoza ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CHARLES LAKE DAVIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01142-DAD-EPG (PC) 9 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 10 RECOMMENDING THAT ALL CLAIMS v. BE DISMISSED, EXCEPT FOR 11 PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST JESSE MENDOZA, et al., DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF ADULT 12 PAROLE OPERATIONS IN HANFORD, Defendants. CALIFORNIA FOR VIOLATION OF THE 13 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND THE REHABILITATION ACT 14 (ECF Nos. 7, 8) 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 16 FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff, Charles Lake Davis, currently incarcerated at the Kings County Jail, is 19 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 20 § 1983. 21 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on August 21, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) 22 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 7.) The Court found that Plaintiff’s 23 complaint states cognizable claims against Defendant Department of Adult Parole Operations 24 in Hanford, California, for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 25 Rehabilitation Act. The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable 26 claims. (Id.) 27 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found 28 cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the 1 || complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge 2 || consistent with the screening order. (/d.) On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court 3 || that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the screening order. (ECF 4 || No. 8.) 5 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 6 || November 5, 2019 (ECF No. 7), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he is willing 7 || to proceed only his claims against Defendant Department of Adult Parole Operations in 8 || Hanford, California, for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation 9 || Act. (ECF No. 8), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims be dismissed, except for 10 || Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Department of Adult Parole Operations in Hanford, 11 || California, for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 13 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen 14 || (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 15 || written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 16 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 17 || within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 18 || 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 19 |] 1991)). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 221! Dated: November 19, 2019 [Jee ey —— 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28