(PC) Howell v. Gallagher

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KAREEM J. HOWELL, Case No. 1:19-cv-00673-EPG Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS v. AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED

J. GALLAGHER, et al., (ECF NOS. 1 & 9) Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

Kareem J. Howell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on May 16, 2019, (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 9.) The Court found that only the following claims should proceed past the screening stage: “retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendant J. Burnes; conspiracy to retaliate in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants J. Burnes, J. Gallagher, and A. Randolph; failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants J. Burnes, J. Gallagher, and A. Randolph; and harassment in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant J. Burnes.” (Id. at 2.) The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening order. (/d.) On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the screening order. (ECF No. 10.) Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on November 7, 2019 (ECF No. 9.), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 10.), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiffs claims for g || retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendant J. Burnes; conspiracy to g | retaliate in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants J. Burnes, J. Gallagher, and A. Randolph; failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants J. Burnes, J. Gallagher, and A. Randolph; and harassment in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant J. Burnes. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with 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 is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 21, 2019 [see hy □ 73 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE