(PC) Howell v. Do Canto et al

Filing 14

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAREEM J. HOWELL,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
vs.
DO CANTO, et al.,
Defendants.

1:19-cv-00854-DAD-GSA-PC
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
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS

18
19

Kareem J. Howell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

21

commencing this action on June 19, 2019. (ECF No. 1.)

22

The Complaint names as defendants Correctional Officer M. Do Canto, Sergeant M.

23

Mason, and Lieutenant C. Munoz, and brings medical claims, retaliation claims, supervisory

24

liability claims, state law claims, and a claim for submitting a false disciplinary report.

25

The court screened the Complaint and found that it states a cognizable claim under the

26

First Amendment against defendant M. Do Canto for retaliation, but no other claims upon which

27

relief may be granted. (ECF No. 11.) On August 21, 2020, the court issued a screening order

28

requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a First Amended Complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is
1

1

willing to proceed only with the retaliation claim against defendant Do Canto found cognizable

2

by the court. (Id.)

3

On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with

4

the retaliation claim against defendant M. Do Canto found cognizable by the court. (ECF No.

5

12.)

6

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

7

1.

8

This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Correctional
Officer M. Do Canto for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

9

2.

All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;

10

3.

Plaintiff’s medical claims, supervisory liability claims, state law claims, and claim

11

for submitting a false disciplinary report be dismissed from this action based on

12

Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted;

13

4.

Defendants Sergeant M. Mason, and Lieutenant C. Munoz be dismissed from this

14

action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which

15

relief may be granted; and

16

5.

17

This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,
including initiation of service of process.

18

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

19

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

20

fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff

21

may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

22

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

23

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

24

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 8, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2