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)

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