(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 Case No.: 1:22-cv-00709-JLT-CDB (PC) KIDWELL, 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND v. DEFENDANTS 14 JASON COLLINS, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Sequoyah Deserthawk Kidwell, also known as Jason Scott Harper, is proceeding 19 pro se in this civil rights action. 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 On November 3, 2023, the Court issued its Second Screening Order. (Doc. 26.) The Court 22 found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint plausibly alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim 23 against Defendant Aguna;1 however, the Court also held the first amended complaint failed to 24 allege any other cognizable claim against any other named Defendant. (Id. at 4-18.) Plaintiff was 25 ordered to select one of the following three options within 21 days of the date of service of the 26 order: (1) to notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a second amended complaint 27 and he is willing to proceed only on the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant 1 Aguna with the remaining claims against any other defendants to be dismissed; or (2) to file a 2 second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in the screening order; 3 or (3) to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 19-20.) 4 On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating he was willing to proceed only on 5 the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Aguna. (Doc. 27.) 6 II. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Second Screening Order (Doc. 26), the Court 8 RECOMMENDS that: 9 1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against 10 Defendant Aguna, in his individual capacity, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 11 2. The following Defendants be DISMISSED from this action: 12 a. Jason Collins 13 b. Donna Williams 14 c. Jose Cisneros Vasquez 15 d. Kathleen Allison 16 e. Mark Alford 17 f. Stu Sherman 18 g. Angel Armenta 19 h. Ricky Dela Cruz 20 i. C. Torres 21 j. Raul Morales 22 k. Lorenzo Macias 23 l. Gabino Mercado 24 m. Cecilia Sanchez 25 n. Maria Quinnonez 26 o. Jaime Escobedo 27 p. Jonathan Esparza 1 r. “Office of Appeals” and 2 s. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and 3 3. The remaining claims in Plaintiff's first amended complaint be DISMISSED. 4 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 5 | this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 6 | Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 7 | document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 8 | Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 9 | rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 10 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 11 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: November 14, 2023 | br 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28