(PC) Howell v. Camargo

Opinion

KAREEM J. HOWELL, 1:19-cv-00266-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF PROCEED ONLY ON v. CLAIM I AGAINST DEFENDANTS BARONA, CAMARGO, MORROW, MUNOZ, A. CAMARGO, et al., RANDOLPH, AND SAUCEDO AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS Defendants. BE DISMISSED

(Docs. 1, 9)

14-DAY DEADLINE

Clerk of Court to Assign a District Judge Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 14, 2019, the Court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for retaliation in Claim I of his complaint, (Doc. 1), against Defendants A. Barona, A. Camargo, C. Morrow, C. Munoz, A. Randolph, and D. Saucedo. (Doc. 9.) The Court found that the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims were deficient. Id. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies or, in the alternative, to notify the Court that he wishes to proceed solely on the claims found cognizable. Id. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file his response within 21 days and indicated that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this action proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court. Id. Although more than two months have passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or to otherwise respond to the Court’s order. Thus, this action should proceed solely on Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation against Defendants Barona, Camargo, Morrow, Munoz, Randolph, and Saucedo, as found cognizable in the Court’s screening order. RECOMMENDATIONS It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that, based on the foregoing and for the reasons stated in the August 14, 2019, screening order, Plaintiff be allowed to proceed solely on his retaliation claims found cognizable in Claim I of his complaint against Defendants A. Barona, A. Camargo, C. Morrow, C. Munoz, A. Randolph, and D. Saucedo, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 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.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of his 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. Sheila K. Oberto Dated: October 17, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE