Lewis v. Vasquez et al

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action Proceed Against Only Defendants Vasquez and Stanley for Retaliation in Violation of the First Amendment and Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants re 14 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/14/2017. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LONNIE LEWIS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. J. VASQUEZ, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-00131-LJO-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THIS ACTION PROCEED AGAINST ONLY DEFENDANTS VASQUEZ AND STANLEY FOR RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS [ECF Nos. 9, 12, 15] OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 19 Plaintiff Lonnie Lewis is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following Plaintiff’s decline to proceed before a United States 21 Magistrate Judge, this matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 22 and Local Rule 302. 23 On June 21, 2017, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that 24 Plaintiff stated a cognizable damages claim against Defendants Vasquez and Stanley for retaliation in 25 violation of the First Amendment based on the allegation that Defendants Vasquez and Stanley 26 requested that Plaintiff be placed in administrative segregation and transferred to another prison 27 because of Plaintiff’s August 18, 2014 appeal. Plaintiff was granted the option of either filing an 28 amended complaint or notifying the Court of his intent to proceed only on the retaliation claim against 1 1 Defendants Vasquez and Stanley and dismissing all other claims and defendants from the action. On 2 July 13, 2017, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed only against Defendants Vasquez 3 and Stanley for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. 6 for retaliation against Defendants Vasquez and Stanley; and 2. 7 8 This action shall proceed on the first amended complaint on Plaintiff’s damages claim All other claims and defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 9 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 12 the Court. 13 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 14 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 15 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: 19 July 14, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 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?