(PC) Madrid v. Anglea et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Claims and Defendants re 11 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/17/2020. Referred to Unassigned DJ; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Rivera, O)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
H. ANGLEA, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01456-NONE-JLT (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CLAIMS AND
On July 14, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that it
states cognizable claims against Defendant Anglea in his individual capacity, but not against
Defendants Toubeaux or Voong. (Doc. 12.) The Court further found that the complaint’s equal
protection, retaliation, and official-capacity claims were not cognizable. (Id.) The Court therefore
directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading or to
notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (Id. at 11-12.)
On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice “that he wishes to proceed only on the
claims found cognizable by the court.” (Doc. 15.) Therefore, the Court issued findings and
recommendations, recommending that Defendants Toubeaux and Voong be dismissed, and that
Plaintiff’s non-cognizable claims be dismissed. (Doc. 17.)
Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 20.) The Court
interpreted Plaintiff’s objections as indicating that he did not intend to dismiss the claims the
Court had found incognizable, and thus it withdrew its findings and recommendations and
directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 21.)
On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response to the order, stating that he
“misinterpreted” the Court’s screening order, and that he “reasserts that he wishes to proceed only
on the claims found cognizable by the Court against Defendant Anglea.” (Doc. 23.) Accordingly,
and for the reasons set forth in its screening order (Doc. 12), the Court RECOMMENDS that:
1. Defendants Toubeaux and Voong be DISMISSED; and,
2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Toubeaux and Voong and his equal
protection, retaliation, and official-capacity claims be DISMISSED.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of
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.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver
of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 17, 2020
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
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?