(PC) Mansour v. North Kern State Prison ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MUSTAFFA MANSOUR, Case No. 1:22-cv-01054-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 12 RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 13 DISMISSED NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al., 14 (ECF Nos. 1 & 24) Defendants. 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 17 DISTRICT JUDGE 18 Mustaffa Mansour (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on August 22, 2022. (ECF No. 1). 21 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 24). The Court found that only the 22 following claim should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 23 excessive force claim against defendant Luken. (Id.). 24 The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either: “a. File a First Amended Complaint; b. 25 Notify the Court in writing that he does not want to file an amended complaint and instead 26 wants to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant 27 Luken; or c. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his complaint.” (Id. at 11). 28 On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as a notice that he wants to een ee een ee EE II EI OE ENE IIE 1 || proceed on the claim that the Court found should proceed past screening. (ECF No. 25).! 2 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 3 || December 16, 2022 (ECF No. 24), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 4 || proceed on the claim that the Court found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 25), it is 5 HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff's 6 || Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Luken. 7 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 8 || judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 9 || fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 10 || file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 11 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 12 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 13 || Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 14 |} (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 16 || judge to this case. 17 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘9 || Dated: _ January 3, 2023 [spe ey — 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 ' Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. (ECF No. 25). In the notice, Plaintiff states that he wrote 26 |} the Court a letter about moving forward on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. While the Court has not yet received this letter, as Plaintiff indicates that he wants to move forward on his Eighth Amendment excessive 27 || force claim, the Court construes the notice as also including Plaintiffs response to the screening order. In the notice Plaintiff also complains about the circumstances of his transfer, but he does not request any 28 || relief from the Court. Accordingly, the Court will not address these allegations. If Plaintiff wants relief related to this case, Plaintiff should file a motion asking for the relief he is seeking or a separate lawsuit regarding this issue.