(PC) Lamon v. Pfeiffer

Opinion

BARRY LOUIS LAMON, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00896-AWI-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. ) RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN C. PFEIFFER, et.al., ) ) (ECF Nos. 22, 23) ) Defendants. ) )

Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 20, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for retaliation against Defendants Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach and Velasco, separate cognizable claims for failure to protect against Defendants Corona, Loera, Ramirez, Eaker, Luna Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Ronquillo, Luna, Rivera-Sierra and Clare, a cognizable Bane Act claim against Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco, and a cognizable intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Defendants Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff was granted the opportunity to file a second amended complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. (Id.) /// On October 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff's separate claims for retaliation against Defendants Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach and Velasco, separate claims for failure to protect against Defendants Corona, Loera, Ramirez, Eaker, Luna Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Ronquillo, Luna, Rivera-Sierra and Clare, Bane Act claim against Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera- Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Defendants Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco; and 2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). 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. A (re lI pated: _ October 30, 2020 OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE