Williams v. Baker et al
ORDER DIRECTING Clerk's Offie to Assign Matter to a District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That This Action Proceed Only on Cognizable First and Eighth Amendment Claim and That All Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed, s igned by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/28/17. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. This case has been assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. The new case number is 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-MJS (PC). (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICER BAKER, et al.,
CASE No. 1:16-cv-01540-MJS (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE
TO ASSIGN MATTER TO A DISTRICT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE
FIRST AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT
CLAIM AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED
(ECF No. 1)
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). On January 30, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it
states a cognizable claim for damages against Defendant Baker for excessive force in
violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment,
but no other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended
complaint or notify the Court in writing if he wished to proceed only on the cognizable
claims. (Id.) Plaintiff responded that he does not intend to amend and instead wishes to
proceed with the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 13.)
However, Plaintiff has not responded to Court orders requiring him to consent to
or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 2, 9). Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office
is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign this matter to a district judge pursuant to
Local Rule 120(e).
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action proceed only on the cognizable First and Eighth
Amendment claims for damages against Defendant Baker ; and
2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action for failure
to state a claim.
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 the 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, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)
(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 28, 2017
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?