(PC) Stevens v. Martinez
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Certain Claims, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/09/2023. Referred to Judge Thurston.Objections to F&R due within Fourteen-Days. (Maldonado, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS
14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
Plaintiff Lyralisa Lavena Stevens is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 9, 2023. (Doc. 20.)
In the Second Screening order issued October 23, 2023, the Court found Plaintiff’s first
amended complaint plausibly alleged cognizable Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause
claims against Defendants Martinez and Peterson. (Doc. 23.) However, Plaintiff’s first amended
complaint failed to state any other cognizable claim against any defendant. (Id. at 4-10.) Plaintiff
was ordered to select one of three options: (1) notify the Court in writing that she does not wish to
file a second amended complaint and was willing to proceed only on the Fourteenth Amendment
equal protection claims against Defendants Martinez and Peterson, the remaining claims against
any defendant to be dismissed; or (2) file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies
identified by the Court in the Second Screening Order; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal.
(Id. at 11.)
On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating the election to proceed on the
claims found cognizable by the Court and stated she did not wish to file a second amended
complaint. (Doc. 24.)
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Second Screening Order (Doc. 23),
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
the Court RECOMMENDS as follows:
1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection
claims against Defendants Martinez and Peterson;
2. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed February 9, 2023,
(Doc. 20), be DISMISSED; and
3. The Clerk of the Court modify the docket in this action to add Defendant N. Peterson
as named in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of
service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party 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.
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
November 9, 2023
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?