Opinion
1:14-cv-01252-LJO-EPG-PC
09-26-2016
LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. ISAAC GONZALEZ, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS GONZALEZ AND MARTINEZ ON PLAINTIFF'S DENIAL OF ACCESS TO COURTS CLAIMS AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN TWENTY DAYS
LaCedric W. Johnson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on April 22, 2016. (ECF No. 13.) The Second Amended Complaint names defendants Isaac Gonzalez and A. Martinez and alleges federal and state claims for denial of access to courts in violation of the First Amendment.
The First Amended Complaint also named a third defendant, J. Benavides. Benavides is not named in the Second Amended Complaint. --------
The Court screened Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it states cognizable claims against Defendants Gonzalez and Martinez. (ECF No. 14.) On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff was told to either notify the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court or to notify the Court that he does not agree to proceed only on the cognizable claims, subject to a recommendation that the non-cognizable claims be dismissed from the action. Id. On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable First Amendment claims against defendants Gonzalez and Martinez. (ECF No. 15.)
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action proceed only against defendants Gonzalez and Martinez on Plaintiff's denial of access to court claim and related state claims;
2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;
3. Plaintiff's claim for procedural due process be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim; and
4. Defendant J. Benavides be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims against them.
These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 twenty (20) 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 26 , 2016
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE