(PC) Valencia v. San Juan

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER G. VALENCIA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00360-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DEBORAH SAN JUAN, (ECF Nos. 1 & 6) Defendant. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN Christopher Valencia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on March 28, 2022. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 6). The Court found that only the following claims should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant San Juan and Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant San Juan. (Id.). The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either: “a. File a First Amended Complaint; b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not want to file an amended complaint and instead wants to proceed only on his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant San Juan and his retaliation claim against defendant San Juan; or c. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his complaint.” (Ud. at 9-10). On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant San Juan and his retaliation claim against defendant San Juan. (ECF No. 7). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on June 17, 2022 (ECF No. 6), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant San Juan and his retaliation claim against defendant San Juan (ECF No. 7), it is HEREBY } RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant San Juan and his retaliation claim against defendant San Juan. 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)(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)). Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 11, 2022 [see heey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE