(PC) Kohut v. Allison

Opinion

JONATHAN KOHUT, Case No.: 1:20-cv-01584 JLT CDB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOLLOWING SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S K. ALLISON, et al., THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants. (Doc. 46) Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants liable for violations of federal and state law. The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s third amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff stated the following cognizable claims: (1) First Amendment violations against Defendants Anaya, Frauenheim, Godwin, Van Ingen, Doe #1, and Doe #2 concerning Plaintiff’s right to send and receive mail; (2) First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Anaya, Van Ingen, and Does #1 and #2; (3) First Amendment claims concerning mail policy against Defendants Macomber, Frauenheim, Godwin, and Lemon, in their official capacities; (4) violation of Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution against Defendant Macomber, in his official capacity; (5) Fourteenth Amendment due process violations against Defendants Anaya, Van Ingen, and Doe #2; (6) Bane Act claims against Defendants Anaya, Van Ingen, Doe #1 and Doe #2; and (7) negligence claims against Defendants Anaya, Van Ingen, Doe #1 and Doe #2. (Doc. 46 at 5-26.) The magistrate judge recommended all other claims raised in the TAC be dismissed. (Id. at 27.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 46 at 27.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 12, 2025 (Doc. 46) are ADOPTED in full. 2. This action PROCEEDS on the following claims: a. First Amendment claims against Defendants Anaya, Frauenheim, Godwin, Van Ingen, Doe #1, and Doe #2 concerning Plaintiff’s right to send and receive mail; b. First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Anaya, Van Ingen, and Doe #1, and Doe #2; c. First Amendment claims concerning mail policy against Defendants Macomber, Frauenheim, Godwin, and Lemon, in their official capacities; d. A violation of Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution against Defendant Macomber, in his official capacity; e. Fourteenth Amendment due process violations against Defendants Anaya, Van Ingen, and Doe #2; f. Bane Act violations against Defendants Anaya, Van Ingen, Doe #1 and Doe #2; and g. State law negligence claims against Defendants Anaya, Van Ingen, Doe #1, and Doe #2. 3. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff's third amended complaint are DISMISSED. 4. The matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge. Dated: _ June 12, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE