(PC) Howell v. Villarreal

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREEM J. HOWELL, Case No. 1:19-cv-01178-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE S. VILLARREAL, et al., (ECF NOS. 1 & 11) Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN Kareem J. Howell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on August 28, 2019. (ECF No. 14). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 11). The Court found that only the following claims should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants S. Villarreal and A. Randolph for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and his claim against Defendant S. Villarreal for violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech/expression. (Id.). 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. (Id. at 13). On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court wOoOe 4:40 VV VELL OUINMINE ENS AOI ee TOY ev

that he wants to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order. (ECF No. } 12). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on April 9, 2020 (ECF No. 11), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 12), it is } HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff's claims against Defendants S. Villarreal and A. Randolph for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and his claim against Defendant S. Villarreal for violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech/expression. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)d). 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)). Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. ! Dated: _ April 28, 2020 [Jee ey —— UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE