(PC) Howard v. CDCR

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 10, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01335
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KARLIS RUBEN AUGUSTUS HOWARD, No. 1:24-cv-01335-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT 13 v. JUDGE TO THIS ACTION 14 CDCR, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 15 Defendants. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 16 (ECF Nos. 8, 9) 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On March 7, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, and found 20 that Plaintiff stated the following cognizable claims: (1) excessive force against Defendants Lee, 21 Rios, Perez, and Reyes; (2) failure to intervene claim against Defendants Rios, Perez, and Reyes; 22 (3) state law claims of assault, battery, and negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, 23 and violation of the Bane Act against Defendants Lee, Rios, Perez, and Reyes; (4) retaliation 24 against Defendant Lee for removing him from the Veteran’s group because he filed an inmate 25 grievance; (5) retaliation against Defendants Lee and Perez for issuing a false rules violation 26 report for filing an inmate grievance; (6) retaliation against Defendants Perez, Lee, and Harter for 27 removal from the Bravo yard for filing an inmate grievance. (ECF No. 8.) However, Plaintiff 28 1 failed to state any other cognizable claims. Plaintiff was granted the opportunity to file an 2 amended complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed on the claims found to be 3 cognizable. (Id.) On April 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the claim found 4 to be cognizable. (ECF No. 9.) 5 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a District 6 Judge to this action 7 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. This action proceed on the following cognizable claims: (1) excessive force against 9 Defendants Lee, Rios, Perez, and Reyes; (2) failure to intervene claim against 10 Defendants Rios, Perez, and Reyes; (3) state law claims of assault, battery, and 11 negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Bane 12 Act against Defendants Lee, Rios, Perez, and Reyes; (4) retaliation against 13 Defendant Lee for removing him from the Veteran’s group because he filed an 14 inmate grievance; (5) retaliation against Defendants Lee and Perez for issuing a false 15 rules violation report for filing an inmate grievance; and (6) retaliation against 16 Defendants Perez, Lee, and Harter for removal from the Bravo yard for filing an 17 inmate grievance. 18 2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to state a 19 cognizable claim for relief. 20 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 22 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 23 objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages, including exhibits. The document should be 24 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 1 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 2 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 | Dated: _ April 10, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28