Williams v. Baker et al

Filing 15

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON WILLIAMS, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, v. OFFICER BAKER, et al., Defendants. CASE No. 1:16-cv-01540-MJS (PC) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE 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 (ECF No. 1) 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 23 rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 24 (1971). On January 30, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it 25 states a cognizable claim for damages against Defendant Baker for excessive force in 26 violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, 27 but no other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended 28 complaint or notify the Court in writing if he wished to proceed only on the cognizable 1 claims. (Id.) Plaintiff responded that he does not intend to amend and instead wishes to 2 proceed with the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 13.) 3 However, Plaintiff has not responded to Court orders requiring him to consent to 4 or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 2, 9). Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office 5 is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign this matter to a district judge pursuant to 6 Local Rule 120(e). 7 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. This action proceed only on the cognizable First and Eighth 9 Amendment claims for damages against Defendant Baker ; and 10 2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action for failure 11 to state a claim. 12 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 13 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. 14 § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and 15 recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document 16 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 17 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 18 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 19 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 28, 2017 /s/ 23 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?