(PC) Brown v. Esmond ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEON BROWN, Case No. 1:21-cv-00808-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS 13 v. 14 R. ESMOND, et al., 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 15 Defendants. Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 16 17 Plaintiff Leon Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 20 On May 13, 2021, Defendants R. Esmond, J. Gutierrez, B. Cates and K. Holland removed 21 this action from the Sacramento County Superior Court to the Sacramento Division of this Court. 22 (Doc. 1.) On May 14, 2021, Defendants filed a request for screening of Plaintiff’s complaint 23 pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). (Doc. 3.) 24 On May 18, 2021, Magistrate Judge Allison Claire granted Defendants’ request for 25 screening, ordering Defendants to file a responsive pleading to the complaint, or any portion that 26 survives screening, 30 days from the date of the screening order. (Doc. 6.) The following day, the 27 action from transferred from the Sacramento Division to the Fresno Division. (Doc. 7.) // 1 This action was reassigned to the undersigned as magistrate judge on October 6, 2022. 2 | (Doc. 11.) 3 On October 31, 2022, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff was 4 | given 21 days to elect one of the following options: (1) to file a first amended complaint curing 5 | the deficiencies identified in the order; (2) to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only 6 | on his claims for deliberate indifference to health and safety; or (3) to file a notice of voluntary 7 | dismissal. Ud. at 12.) 8 Following a 30-day extension of time, on December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed notice electing 9 | to proceed on the deliberate indifference to health and safety claims. (Doc. 15.) 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 11 Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 12), the 12 | Court RECOMMENDS that the claims in Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED, except for the 13 | claims of deliberate indifference to health and safety (Plaintiffs claim two) against Defendants R. 14 | Esmond, J. Gutierrez, B. Cates, P. Vasquez, and W.J. Sullivan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 15 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a district judge to this action. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 17 | Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days of the date of 18 | service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the 19 | Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 20 | Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 21 | rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 22 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. “| Dated: _December 12, 2022 | Wr Pr 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28