(PC) Howell v. Do Canto et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action proceed only against Defendant M. Do Canto for retaliation under the First Amendment and that all other claims and Defendants be dismissed signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/8/2020. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to F & R's due within 14-Days.(Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KAREEM J. HOWELL,
DO CANTO, et al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST
DEFENDANT M. DO CANTO FOR
RETALIATION UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, AND THAT ALL OTHER
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS
Kareem J. Howell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
commencing this action on June 19, 2019. (ECF No. 1.)
The Complaint names as defendants Correctional Officer M. Do Canto, Sergeant M.
Mason, and Lieutenant C. Munoz, and brings medical claims, retaliation claims, supervisory
liability claims, state law claims, and a claim for submitting a false disciplinary report.
The court screened the Complaint and found that it states a cognizable claim under the
First Amendment against defendant M. Do Canto for retaliation, but no other claims upon which
relief may be granted. (ECF No. 11.) On August 21, 2020, the court issued a screening order
requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a First Amended Complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is
willing to proceed only with the retaliation claim against defendant Do Canto found cognizable
by the court. (Id.)
On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with
the retaliation claim against defendant M. Do Canto found cognizable by the court. (ECF No.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Correctional
Officer M. Do Canto for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;
All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;
Plaintiff’s medical claims, supervisory liability claims, state law claims, and claim
for submitting a false disciplinary report be dismissed from this action based on
Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted;
Defendants Sergeant M. Mason, and Lieutenant C. Munoz be dismissed from this
action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which
relief may be granted; and
This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,
including initiation of service of process.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 8, 2020
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?