(PC) Howard v. Shirley

Opinion

1 2 3

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 KARLIS RUBEN AUGUSTUS HOWARD, Case No. 1:24-cv-01338-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 THAT (1) THIS CASE PROCEED ONLY v. ON PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AMENDMENT 12 CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS HEATHER SHIRELY, et al., SHIRLEY, SINGLETON, MADDUX, 13 SANCHEZ, CARPENTER, RODRIGUEZ, Defendants. JOHN DOES 1–20, AND JOHN DOE 14 SUPERVISORS 1–5; (2) DEFENDANTS KERN COUNTY AND WASCO CITY BE 15 DISMISSED AS DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE; AND (3) ALL PLAINTIFF’S 16 OTHER CLAIMS BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 17 (ECF Nos. 1, 11, 13) 18

19 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS 20 21 Plaintiff Karlis Ruben Augustus Howard proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this 22 civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). The complaint alleges that 23 various prison officials subjected Plaintiff to unreasonably harassing and punitive strip searches 24 and maliciously destroyed his property. 25 On June 9, 2025, the Court screened the complaint, concluding that Plaintiff sufficiently 26 stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for unreasonable search against Defendants 27 Shirley, Singleton, Maddux, Sanchez, Carpenter, Rodriguez, John Does 1–20, and John Doe 28 Supervisors 1–5. (ECF No. 11). The Court also explained why the complaint otherwise failed 1 to state any claims and, specifically, failed to state a Monell claim against Defendants Kern 2 County and Wasco City. The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either file (1) a notice to go 3 forward on his cognizable claim, (2) a second amended complaint; or (3) a notice to stand on 4 his complaint and have it reviewed by a district judge. (Id. at 11-13). 5 On July 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Proceed on All Claims Deemed 6 Cognizable,” stating that Plaintiff is “moving this court for an order to proceed on all claims 7 deemed cognizable claim, valid, warranted claims for deprivation of 4th amendment federal 8 constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” (ECF No. 13 at 2). 9 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 10 June 9, 2025 (ECF No. 11), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 11 proceed on the “4th amendment federal constitutional right to be free from unreasonable 12 searches and seizures” (ECF No. 13 at 2), IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. This case proceed on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable 14 search against Defendants Shirley, Singleton, Maddux, Sanchez, Carpenter, 15 Rodriguez, John Does 1–20, and John Doe Supervisors 1–5; 16 2. Defendants Kern County and Wasco City be dismissed with prejudice for failure 17 to state a cognizable claim against them; and 18 3. All other claims be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 19 Additionally, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to this case. 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 \\\ 1 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. 6 |! Dated: _ July 22, 2025 [spe ey —— 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28