(PC)Saiz v. Putnam et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/18/2020 recommending that that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Putnam and Shrieber re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Martin Saiz. referred to Judge Unassigned DJ; Objections to F&R due by 12/7/2020(Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:20-cv-01231-EPG (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
PUTNAM and SCHRIEBER,
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN
Martin Saiz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 31, 2020. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened
Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 6). The Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint “states
cognizable claims against Defendants Putnam and Schrieber for (1) violating his due process
rights with respect to housing him in administrative segregation and (2) violating his First
Amendment rights by retaliating against him for his protected speech.” (Id. at 9-10).
The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found
cognizable by the Court in the screening order or filing an amended the complaint. (Id. at 11).
On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claims
found cognizable in the screening order. (ECF No. 7).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on
October 26, 2020 (ECF No. 6), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to
proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 7), it is HEREBY
RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants Putnam and Schrieber for (1) violating his due process rights with respect to
housing him in administrative segregation and (2) violating his First Amendment rights by
retaliating against him for his protected speech
These findings and recommendations are 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 being served with 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 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.
Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394
(9th Cir. 1991)).
Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district
judge to this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 18, 2020
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?