Jose Oliver Chavez v. U. Reyes, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 JOSE OLIVER CHAVEZ Case No. 1:25-cv-00142-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 11 TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE v. 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS U. REYES, et al., THAT (1) THIS CASE PROCEED ONLY 13 ON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROTECT Defendants. CLAIM IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH 14 AMENDMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS U. REYES, J. CORTEZ, AND JOHN DOES; 15 AND (2) ALL OF OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 16 (ECF Nos. 13, 16) 17

18 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS 19 20 Plaintiff Jose Chavez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 21 civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed a First Amended 22 Complaint on May 12, 2025 (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges that 23 Defendants U. Reyes, J. Cortez, T. Cisneros, G. Ward, and John Does1 failed to protect him 24 from an attack by rival gang member inmates even though Defendants knew an attack would 25 occur and did not intervene. (Id. at 4). 26 On January 15, 2026, the Court screened the complaint, concluding that that Plaintiff 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint lists “John Doe” as a single Defendant, but the facts allege that there were “three John Doe.” (ECF No. 13 at 4). 1 states only the following claim: failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 2 Defendants U. Reyes, J. Cortez, and John Does, correctional officers at California Substance 3 Abuse Treatment Facility. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint does not sufficiently state a 4 claim against T. Cisneros and G. Ward. (ECF No. 15) The Court also explained why the 5 complaint failed to state any other cognizable claims. The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to 6 either file (1) a notice to proceed on these claims, (2) a first amended complaint; or (3) a notice 7 to stand on his complaint and have it reviewed by a district judge. (Id. at 8). 8 On February 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “Notice To Proceed on Cognizable Claims” 9 stating that Plaintiff will proceed with the claim against the defendants the Court found 10 cognizable. (ECF No. 16). 11 Accordingly, the Court respectfully requests the Clerk of Court assign a district judge to 12 this matter. 13 Additionally, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 14 January 15, 2026 (ECF No. 15), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court of the claims he 15 wishes to proceed on (ECF No. 16), IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 16 1. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim of failure to protect in violation of the 17 Eighth Amendment against Defendants U. Reyes, J. Cortez, and John Does; and 18 2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state 19 a claim. 20 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 21 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 22 thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 23 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 24 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 15 25 pages, including exhibits. 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ ] Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 2 || the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 3 || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 19, 2026 [Je heey — 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28