(PC) Coffer v. Ericson

Opinion

JONATHAN CHRISTOPHER COFFER, No. 2:23-cv-2474 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ERICSON, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 6, 2025, the court screened the first amended complaint and found that plaintiff’s allegations against defendants Saltz, Costa, Edwards, Ericsson, and Prasad stated claims while his claims against defendants Grigsby, Doe defendants, and CDCR were insufficient. ECF No. 51 at 5-6. Plaintiff was given the option of amending the complaint or proceeding immediately on his cognizable claims against defendants Saltz, Costa, Edwards, Ericsson, and Prasad. Id. at 6. He was further advised that if he failed to notify the court how he wanted to proceed, the court would assume that he was choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and recommend dismissal without prejudice of plaintiff’s claims against Grigsby, Doe defendants, and CDCR. Id. at 7. The time for plaintiff to notify the court as to how he wishes to proceed has now passed, and plaintiff has not made an election or otherwise responded to the order. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that for the reasons set forth in the February 6, 2025, Screening Order (ECF No. 51 at 5-6, 10-11), Doe defendants and defendants Grigsby and CDCR be dismissed without prejudice. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: March 21, 2025 ~ Chthwen— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE