(PC) Madrid v. Anglea et al

Filing 24

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALEJANDRO MADRID,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
H. ANGLEA, et al.,

Case No. 1:19-cv-01456-NONE-JLT (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS
14-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
17

On July 14, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that it

18

states cognizable claims against Defendant Anglea in his individual capacity, but not against

19

Defendants Toubeaux or Voong. (Doc. 12.) The Court further found that the complaint’s equal

20

protection, retaliation, and official-capacity claims were not cognizable. (Id.) The Court therefore

21

directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading or to

22

notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (Id. at 11-12.)

23

On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice “that he wishes to proceed only on the

24

claims found cognizable by the court.” (Doc. 15.) Therefore, the Court issued findings and

25

recommendations, recommending that Defendants Toubeaux and Voong be dismissed, and that

26

Plaintiff’s non-cognizable claims be dismissed. (Doc. 17.)

27
28

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

1

Court had found incognizable, and thus it withdrew its findings and recommendations and

2

directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 21.)

3

On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response to the order, stating that he

4

“misinterpreted” the Court’s screening order, and that he “reasserts that he wishes to proceed only

5

on the claims found cognizable by the Court against Defendant Anglea.” (Doc. 23.) Accordingly,

6

and for the reasons set forth in its screening order (Doc. 12), the Court RECOMMENDS that:

7

1. Defendants Toubeaux and Voong be DISMISSED; and,

8

2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Toubeaux and Voong and his equal

9

protection, retaliation, and official-capacity claims be DISMISSED.

10

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

11

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of

12

the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections

13

with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

14

and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver

15

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

16

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

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 17, 2020

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2