(PC) Howell v. Burns

Opinion

KAREEM J. HOWELL, Case No. 1:19-cv-00568-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT FOUND v. COGNIZABLE J. BURNES, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge On February 3, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and found that it states cognizable claims under the Eighth Amendment against J. Burnes, C. Gamboa, and A. Randolph, but not against J. Ceballos and an unnamed warden. (Doc. 10.) The Court directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in its order or notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only the claims found cognizable. (Id.) In response to the Court’s screening order, Plaintiff filed a notice that he “would like to proceed … only on the claims found to be cognizable by the court … against Defendants Burnes, Gamboa, and Randolph,” and he “would like Defendants Ceballos and the warden to be dismissed.” (Doc. 11.) For this reason, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 10), the Court RECOMMENDS that Ceballos and the warden be DISMISSED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of 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.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE