Stevenson v. Curnel et al

Filing 12

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending this 9 Action Proceed on Plaintiff's Due Process Claim Against Defendant Randolph and Dismissing all other Defendants and Claims signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/16/2017. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within Fourteen Days. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GENGHIS KHAN ALI STEVENSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. M. CURNEL, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-00764-LJO-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THIS ACTION PROCEED AGAINST ON PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT RANDOLPH AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS [ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11] Plaintiff Genghis Khan Ali Stevenson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On August 2, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that it 20 stated a cognizable due process claim against Defendant Randolph, but did not state any other 21 cognizable claims. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff was ordered to amend his complaint to attempt to cure the 22 deficiencies identified by the Court in that order, or notify the Court that he is agreeable to proceeding 23 only on the claim identified as cognizable. (Id. at p. 11.) 24 On July 17, 2017, Plaintiff notified the Court that he will not amend his complaint, and agrees 25 to proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable in the Court’s August 2, 2017 screening order. 26 (ECF No. 10.) As a result, the Court will recommend that Defendants M. Curnel, J. Caldwell, and 27 M.L. Oliveria be dismissed from this action, and that it proceed only on the due process claim 28 identified above for the reasons stated in the Court’s August 2, 2017 screening order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 1 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 2 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. This action only proceed on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Randolph for a due process violation; and 5 2. 6 All other claims and Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 7 8 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within fourteen (14) days 10 after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 11 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” 12 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 13 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 14 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: 18 August 16, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 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?