Stanley E. Redick III v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC

Opinion

STANLEY E. REDICK, III , ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00358-NONE-SAB ) Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. ) RECOMMENDING THIS ACTION PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF’S BANE ACT CLAIM ONLY ) ) (ECF Nos. 13, 19, 21, 22) Defendant. ) ) )

Plaintiff Stanley E. Redick, III, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on March 8, 2021, against Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC. On May 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On June 8, 2021, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 17, 2021. (EC No. 13.) On August 5, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim against Defendant only for a violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 52.1 (“Bane Act”). (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to amend his complaint or notify the Court that he is agreeable to proceeding only on the Bane Act claim identified as cognizable. (Id.) On August 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 21.) However, on August 23, 2021, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wished to proceed only on the Bane Act claim. (ECF No. 22.) Specifically, Plaintiff writes that he would like to withdraw his third amended complaint; and that he apologizes as he did not receive the paperwork from the Court about this option until after he sent the third amended complaint. (Id.) Thus, the Court finds □□□□□□□□□ has clearly expressed his intent to withdraw the recently filed third amended complaint, and proceed only on the Bane Act claim found to be cognizable. As a result, the Court will recommend that this action only proceed on the claim identifi above, and all other claims and defendants be dismissed for the reasons stated in the Court’s August 2021 screening order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlant 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 Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LL for a Bane Act violation; 2. All other claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could | granted, consistent with the Court’s August 5, 2021 order; and 3. Plaintiff's third amended complaint (ECF No. 21) be WITHDRAWN. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Juds assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within fourteen (1: days after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objectiot with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver « rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter_ Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). A (re Dated: _ August 24, 2021 OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE