Anthony J. Davis v. Tuolumne County, et al.

E.D. California

Anthony J. Davis v. Tuolumne County, et al.

DecidedSeptember 23, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00925

StatusUnknown

This text of Anthony J. Davis v. Tuolumne County, et al. (Anthony J. Davis v. Tuolumne County, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anthony J. Davis v. Tuolumne County, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY J. DAVIS, No. 1:25-cv-00925-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. TO THIS ACTION 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 15 Defendants. CERTAIN CLAIMS 16 (ECF Nos. 7, 9) 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On September 5, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and found 21 that Plaintiff stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant Hurtado, but failed to state 22 any other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 7.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second 23 amended complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only on the retaliation claim. (Id.) 24 On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the claim found to be 25 cognizable. (ECF No. 9.) 26 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a District 27 Judge to this action. 28 1 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiffs retaliation against Defendant Hurtado; and 3 2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to state a 4 cognizable claim for relief. 5 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 7 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 8 objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages, including exhibits. The document should be 9 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffis advised 10 that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 12 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 15 | Dated: _ September 23, 2025 " STANLEY A. BOONE 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY J. DAVIS, No. 1:25-cv-00925-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. TO THIS ACTION 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 15 Defendants. CERTAIN CLAIMS 16 (ECF Nos. 7, 9) 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On September 5, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and found 21 that Plaintiff stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant Hurtado, but failed to state 22 any other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 7.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second 23 amended complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only on the retaliation claim. (Id.) 24 On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the claim found to be 25 cognizable. (ECF No. 9.) 26 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a District 27 Judge to this action. 28 1 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiffs retaliation against Defendant Hurtado; and 3 2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to state a 4 cognizable claim for relief. 5 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 7 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 8 objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages, including exhibits. The document should be 9 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffis advised 10 that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 12 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 15 | Dated: _ September 23, 2025 " STANLEY A. BOONE 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anthony J. Davis v. Tuolumne County, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-j-davis-v-tuolumne-county-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack