(PC) Kidwell v. Collins ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEQUOYAH DESERTHAWK KIDWELL, Case No.: 1:22-cv-0709 JLT CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 14 JASON COLLINS, et al., (Doc. 28) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Sequoyah Deserthawk Kidwell, also known as Jason Scott Harper, seeks to hold the 18 defendants liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a), and found Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for retaliation under the First 22 Amendment against Defendant Aguna, in his individual capacity. However, the magistrate judge 23 found Plaintiff failed to allege cognizable claims against the other defendants. Therefore, the 24 Court granted Plaintiff the option of filing an amended complaint or proceeding on the claim 25 found cognizable. (See generally Doc. 26.) Plaintiff informed the Court he was willing to 26 proceed only on his First Amendment Claim against Aguna. (Doc. 27.) 27 The magistrate judge then issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Aguna, in 1 his individual capacity, and that the remaining claims and defendants to be dismissed. (Doc. 28.) 2 The magistrate judge advised Plaintiff the “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time 3 may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.” (Id. at 3, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 4 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff did not file 5 objections and the deadline to do expired. 6 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. 7 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 8 supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued November 14, 2023 (Doc. 28) are 10 ADOPTED in full. 11 2. This action PROCEEDS only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim 12 against Defendant Aguna, in his individual capacity. 13 3. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint are DISMISSED. 14 4. The following Defendants are DISMISSED from this action, and the Clerk of Court is 15 directed to update the docket to reflect their dismissal: 16 a. Jason Collins 17 b. Donna Williams 18 c. Jose Cisneros Vasquez 19 d. Kathleen Allison 20 e. Mark Alford 21 f. Stu Sherman 22 g. Angel Armenta 23 h. Ricky Dela Cruz 24 i. C. Torres 25 j. Raul Morales 26 k. Lorenzo Macias 27 l. Gabino Mercado 1 n. Maria Quinnonez 2 o. Jaime Escobedo 3 p. Jonathan Esparza 4 q. Connie Gipson 5 r. “Office of Appeals” and 6 s. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 7 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to correct the docket regarding the remaining 8 Defendant’s surname, as reflected in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, from 9 “Henry Aguwa” to Henry Aguna. 10 6. This matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 11 b IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _December 2, 2023 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28