(PC) Kidwell v. Collins, et al

Filing 28

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending to Dismiss Certain Claims and Defendants re 22 signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 11/14/2023. Referred to Judge Thurston. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Xiong, J.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SEQUOYAH DESERTHAWK
KIDWELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
v.

14

JASON COLLINS, et al.,

15

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00709-JLT-CDB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS
14-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff Sequoyah Deserthawk Kidwell, also known as Jason Scott Harper, is proceeding
pro se in this civil rights action.

20

I.

21

On November 3, 2023, the Court issued its Second Screening Order. (Doc. 26.) The Court

INTRODUCTION

22

found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint plausibly alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim

23

against Defendant Aguna;1 however, the Court also held the first amended complaint failed to

24

allege any other cognizable claim against any other named Defendant. (Id. at 4-18.) Plaintiff was

25

ordered to select one of the following three options within 21 days of the date of service of the

26

order: (1) to notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a second amended complaint

27

and he is willing to proceed only on the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant

28

1

In Plaintiff’s original complaint, this individual’s surname was spelled “Aguwa.” (See Docs. 1 & 19 at 6.)

1

Aguna with the remaining claims against any other defendants to be dismissed; or (2) to file a

2

second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in the screening order;

3

or (3) to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 19-20.)

4
5

On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating he was willing to proceed only on
the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Aguna. (Doc. 27.)

6

II.

7

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Second Screening Order (Doc. 26), the Court

8
9
10
11

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDS that:
1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against
Defendant Aguna, in his individual capacity, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
2. The following Defendants be DISMISSED from this action:

12

a. Jason Collins

13

b. Donna Williams

14

c. Jose Cisneros Vasquez

15

d. Kathleen Allison

16

e. Mark Alford

17

f. Stu Sherman

18

g. Angel Armenta

19

h. Ricky Dela Cruz

20

i. C. Torres

21

j. Raul Morales

22

k. Lorenzo Macias

23

l. Gabino Mercado

24

m. Cecilia Sanchez

25

n. Maria Quinnonez

26

o. Jaime Escobedo

27

p. Jonathan Esparza

28

q. Connie Gipson
2

1

r. “Office of Appeals” and

2

s. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and

3

3. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be DISMISSED.

4

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to

5

this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these

6

Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The

7

document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:

November 14, 2023

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3