(PC) Kidwell v. Collins, et al
Filing
29
ORDER ADOPTING 28 Findings and Recommendations to dismiss certain claims and defendants signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/2/2023. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SEQUOYAH DESERTHAWK KIDWELL,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
JASON COLLINS, et al.,
Case No.: 1:22-cv-0709 JLT CDB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. 28)
Defendants.
16
17
Sequoyah Deserthawk Kidwell, also known as Jason Scott Harper, seeks to hold the
18
defendants liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred
19
to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915A(a), and found Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for retaliation under the First
22
Amendment against Defendant Aguna, in his individual capacity. However, the magistrate judge
23
found Plaintiff failed to allege cognizable claims against the other defendants. Therefore, the
24
Court granted Plaintiff the option of filing an amended complaint or proceeding on the claim
25
found cognizable. (See generally Doc. 26.) Plaintiff informed the Court he was willing to
26
proceed only on his First Amendment Claim against Aguna. (Doc. 27.)
27
28
The magistrate judge then issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending this
action proceed only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Aguna, in
1
his individual capacity, and that the remaining claims and defendants to be dismissed. (Doc. 28.)
2
The magistrate judge advised Plaintiff the “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time
3
may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.” (Id. at 3, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
4
839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff did not file
5
objections and the deadline to do expired.
6
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of the case.
7
Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are
8
supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
9
10
11
12
1. The Findings and Recommendations issued November 14, 2023 (Doc. 28) are
ADOPTED in full.
2. This action PROCEEDS only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim
against Defendant Aguna, in his individual capacity.
13
3. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint are DISMISSED.
14
4. The following Defendants are DISMISSED from this action, and the Clerk of Court is
15
directed to update the docket to reflect their dismissal:
16
a. Jason Collins
17
b. Donna Williams
18
c. Jose Cisneros Vasquez
19
d. Kathleen Allison
20
e. Mark Alford
21
f. Stu Sherman
22
g. Angel Armenta
23
h. Ricky Dela Cruz
24
i. C. Torres
25
j. Raul Morales
26
k. Lorenzo Macias
27
l. Gabino Mercado
28
m. Cecilia Sanchez
2
1
n. Maria Quinnonez
2
o. Jaime Escobedo
3
p. Jonathan Esparza
4
q. Connie Gipson
5
r. “Office of Appeals” and
6
s. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
7
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to correct the docket regarding the remaining
8
Defendant’s surname, as reflected in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, from
9
“Henry Aguwa” to Henry Aguna.
10
6. This matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 2, 2023
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?