(PC) Barnes v. Van Ness

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, Case No. 1:20-cv-00625-NONE-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE VAN NESS, et al., (ECF NOS. 1 & 9) Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS Antoine Barnes (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on May 1, 2020. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 9). The Court found that only the following claim should proceed passed the screening stage: Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment sexual harassment claim against Deputy Van Ness. (Id.). The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claim found cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 12). On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment sexual harassment claim against Deputy Van Ness. (ECF No. 10).1 1 In the notice Plaintiff also makes numerous allegations that are unrelated to his Eighth Amendment sexual harassment claim against Deputy Van Ness. Plaintiff also asks for various forms of relief. The Court will wOoOU 4 OU UVM EW INV INE SO ORMMEOC ee OY

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on July 14, 2020 (ECF No. 9), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment sexual harassment claim against Deputy Van Ness (ECF No. 10), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment sexual harassment claim against Deputy Van Ness. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within g || fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file ] objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 } (9th Cir. 1991)). 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘6 |! Dated: _ July 29, 2020 [Jee Sy — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ——— SSS not address these allegations or requests for relief. As the Court previously told Plaintiff when denying his motion to supplement (ECF No. 9, pgs. 6-7), Plaintiff “may not proceed on a myriad of unrelated claims against different defendants in a single action.” (d. at 7). If Plaintiff believes that his rights are being violated, Plaintiff may file a separate action based on the allegations in the notice.