(PC) Williams v. Castro et al

Filing 17

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action proceed on Plaintiffs deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Regado for making death threats, and against Defendants Regado, Ruiz, and Castro for deliberate indifference to his safety and violation of the Equal Protection Clause; referred to Judge Unassigned DJ, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/1/2021. (Objections to F&R due within 14-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT CURTIS WILLIAMS, III

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

CASTRO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01617-SAB (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO
THIS ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(ECF Nos. 14, 15)

Plaintiff Robert Curtis Williams, III is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On January 8, 2021, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s first complaint and found that

20

Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference against Defendant Regado for making

21

death threats, and against Defendants Regado, Ruiz, and Castro for deliberate indifference to his safety

22

and violation of the Equal Protection Clause. (ECF No. 14.) However, Plaintiff was advised that he

23

failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff was advised that he could file an

24

amended complaint or a notice of intent to proceed on the claim found to be cognizable. (Id.)

25

On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed against Defendant

26

Regado for making death threats, and against Defendants Regado, Ruiz, and Castro for deliberate

27

indifference to his safety and violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, the Court will

28

recommend that this action proceed only against Defendants Regado, Ruiz, and Castro. Fed. R. Civ.
1

1

P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

2

555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a District

3
4

Judge to this action.

5

Further, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

6

1.

This action proceed on Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against Defendant

7

Regado for making death threats, and against Defendants Regado, Ruiz, and Castro for

8

deliberate indifference to his safety and violation of the Equal Protection Clause; and
2.

9

All other claims and Defendants for relief are dismissed for failure to state a
cognizable claim.

10

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

11
12

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

13

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections

14

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

15

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

16

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

17

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

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

21

February 1, 2021
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3