(PC) Reyna v. Kings County Jail ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN REYNA, 1:20-cv-00447-AWI-GSA-PC 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Plaintiffs, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 13 PROCEED ONLY WITH PLAINTIFF’S vs. RETALIATION CLAIMS AGAINST 14 DEFENDANTS VALDEZ, PUTNAM, AND KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al., ALCALA, AND THAT ALL OTHER 15 CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE Defendants. DISMISSED 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 John Reyna (“Plaintiff”) is a Kings County Jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 24 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 25 commencing this action on March 27, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) On July 28, 2021, the court screened 26 the Complaint and issued an order dismissing it for violation of Rule 18, with leave to amend. 27 (ECF No. 6.) On November 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 28 13.) 1 The First Amended Complaint names as defendants Kings County Jail, Valdez 2 (Mailroom Staff), Putnam (Classification Staff), Alcala (Classification Staff), and Syndre 3 (Mailroom Staff) (collectively, “Defendants”), and brings claims for First Amendment free 4 exercise of religion, violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 5 (RLUIPA), retaliation, and violation of due process. 6 The court screened the First Amended Complaint and found that it states cognizable 7 claims for retaliation under the First Amendment against Defendants Valdez, Putnam, and 8 Alcala, but no other claims against any Defendant. (ECF No. 14.) On February 14, 2022, the 9 court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a Second Amended Complaint, 10 or (2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the retaliation claims found 11 cognizable by the court. (Id.) 12 On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the 13 retaliation claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 15.) 14 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 15 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Valdez, 16 Putnam, and Alcala for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 17 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 18 3. Plaintiff’s claims for violation of due process, religious freedom under the First 19 Amendment, and violation of RLUIPA be dismissed from this action based on 20 Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; 21 4. Defendants Kings County Jail and Syndre (Mailroom Staff) be dismissed from 22 this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which 23 relief may be granted; and 24 5. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 25 including initiation of service of process. 26 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 27 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 28 fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 1 may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 2 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 3 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 4 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: March 9, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28