(PC) Nuno v. Eslick ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUILLERMO NUNO, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00769-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ) RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ) THIS ACTION 14 ESLICK, et al., ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 15 Defendants. ) CLAIMS ) 16 ) (ECF Nos. 16, 17) 17 Plaintiff Steven Deon Turner, Jr., is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On July 30, 2021, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated 20 a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference against Defendants Eslick and Flores, and a cognizable 21 retaliation claim against Defendants Satterfield and Flores. (ECF No. 16.) However, Plaintiff was 22 advised that he failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Id.) Plaintiff was granted the opportunity 23 to file an amended complaint or a notice of intent to proceed on the claim found to be cognizable. 24 (Id.) 25 On August 10, 2021, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the deliberate 26 indifference claim against Defendants Eslick and Flores and retaliation claim against Defendants 27 Satterfield and Flores. (ECF No. 17.) Accordingly, the Court will recommend that this action proceed 28 against Defendants Eslick, Flores and Satterfield. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 1 || 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3 2 || 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 3 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly 4 || assign a District Judge to this action. 5 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. This action proceed against Defendants Eslick and Flores for deliberate indifference, 7 and against Defendants Satterfield and Flores for retaliation; and 8 2. All other claims be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 9 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) days 11 || after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 12 || with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 14 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 15 || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe 18 Dated: _ August 11, 2021 OF 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28