(PC)Roberson v. CDCR ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MORRIS ROBERSON, Case No. 1:22-cv-00833-SAB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT 12 v. JUDGE TO THIS ACTION 13 CDCR, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 14 Defendants. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 15 (ECF No. 9) 16 17 Plaintiff Morris Roberson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On August 22, 2022, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found a cognizable 20 excessive force claim against Chavez, Salazer, Kyt, Lirio and Furlong, and a cognizable failure 21 to intervene claim against Defendants Valero, Rodriguez, Charles, Furlong, Acebedo, Lirio, 22 Hunter, Loza and Gonzalez. (ECF No. 8.) However, Plaintiff fails to state any other cognizable 23 claims for relief. Plaintiff was informed that he could file an amended complaint or a notice of 24 intent to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable. (Id.) 25 On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff timely notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the 26 claim found to be cognizable. (ECF No. 9.) Therefore, the Court will recommend that this 27 action proceed only on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Chavez, Salazer, Kyt, Lirio and Furlong, and failure to intervene claim against DefendantS Valero, Rodriguez, Charles, Furlong, 1 | Acebedo, Lirio, Hunter, Loza and Gonzalez. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 2 | 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 3 | F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 5 | District Judge to this action. 6 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Chavez, 8 Salazer, Kyt, Lirio and Furlong, and failure to intervene claim against DefendantS 9 Valero, Rodriguez, Charles, Furlong, Acebedo, Lirio, Hunter, Loza and Gonzalez; 10 and 11 2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable 12 claim. 13 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 14 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen 15 | (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 16 | written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 17 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 18 | within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 19 | 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 20 | 1991)). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 33 | Dated: _ September 13, 2022 " UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27