Carl Ethridge v. Doe

Filing 17

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/13/2014 recommending Dismissal of Unidentified "Doe" Defendants re 13 , 16 . Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due within 15-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARL ETHRIDGE,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02088-AWI-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
UNIDENTIFIED “DOE” DEFENDANTS
[ECF Nos. 13, 16]

Plaintiff Carl Ethrdige is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On December 16, 2013, the Court screening Plaintiff’s original complaint filed on December

20

28, 2012, and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants F.A.

21

Rodriguez, Reyna, C. Rasey, and V. Lawrence. However, Plaintiff did not state a cognizable

22

retaliation claim against any of the additional unidentified Doe defendants and Plaintiff was granted

23

the option of either filing an amended complaint or notifying the Court of his intent to proceed against

24

the above-named defendants only.

25

On March 12, 2014, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the retaliation

26

against Defendants Rodriguez, Reyna, Rasey, and Lawrence only. (ECF No. 16.) Accordingly, as

27

advised in the Court’s December 16, 2013, screening order, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the

28

any of the unidentified “Doe” defendants and they must be dismissed from the action.
1

1

Based on the foregoing,

2

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all unidentified “Doe” defendants be dismissed from

3
4

the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

5

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)

6

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

7

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

8

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

9

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

10

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 13, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2