Williams v. Alfaro

Filing 14

ORDER Directing Clerk's Office to Assign Matter to a District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that This Action Proceed Only on Cognizable Claims and That All Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/19/2018. This case has been assigned to District Judge Anthony W. Ishii and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. The new case number is 1:17-cv-01310-AWI-MJS (PC). Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-01310-MJS (PC)

12
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15
16
17
18

S. ALFARO, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE
TO ASSIGN MATTER TO A DISTRICT
JUDGE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY ON
COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AND THAT ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
DISMISSED
(ECF No. 1)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On December 21, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) and
found that it states the following cognizable claims: 1) First Amendment retaliation claims
for damages against Defendants Villarrial, Dollarhide, Longoria, and Noland in their
individual capacities; 2) Eighth Amendment excessive force claims for damages against
Defendants Campbell, Morelock, Longoria, Noland, and Burns in their individual
capacities; 3) Eighth Amendment medical claims for damages against Defendants

1

Dollarhide, Noland,1 and Burns in their individual capacities; 4) Fourteenth Amendment

2

Equal Protection claims for damages against Defendants Longoria, Noland, and

3

Alvarado in their individual capacities; and 5) ADA claims against Defendants Alfaro and

4

Sexton in their official capacities, but no other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff

5

was ordered to file an amended complaint or notify the Court in writing if he wished to

6

proceed only on the cognizable claims. (Id.)

7
8

Plaintiff responded that he wants to proceed on the claims found cognizable.
(ECF Nos. 12, 13.)

9

Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) However, no

10

defendants have appeared or consented. Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office is HEREBY

11

DIRECTED to randomly assign this matter to a district judge pursuant to Local Rule

12

120(e).

13

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

14

1. This action proceed on the following cognizable claims as explained in

15

the Court’s screening order:

16

a. First Amendment claims for damages against Defendants Villarrial,

17

Dollarhide, Longoria, and Noland in their individual capacities;

18

b. Eighth Amendment excessive force claims for damages against

19

Defendants Campbell, Morelock, Longoria, Noland, and Burns

20

in their individual capacities;

21

c. Eighth Amendment medical claims for damages against

22

Defendants Dollarhide, Noland, and Burns in their individual

23

capacities;

24

d. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims for damages

25

against Defendants Longoria, Noland, and Alvarado in their

26
27
28

1

The conclusion of the prior order (ECF No. 11) erroneously stated that this claim was against Defendant
Longoria, however, as noted in the body of the screening order, it should have been against Defendant
Noland.
2

1

individual capacities; and

2

e. ADA claims against Defendants Alfaro and Sexton in their official

3

capacities;

4

2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action for failure

5

to state a claim.

6

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

7

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.

8

§ 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and

9

recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document

10

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

11

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the

12

waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)

13

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 19, 2018

/s/

17

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Michael J. Seng

3