Opinion
1:21-cv-01109-ADA-CDB (PC)
01-20-2023
JOE ALFRED TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. AYUB HAROUN, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS
(DOC. 21.)
Plaintiff Joe Alfred Taylor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 23, 2022, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 21.) The Court found Plaintiff's first amended complaint stated cognizable claims for a violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights against Defendants De La Cruz and Haroun (Claims I & II) and a violation of Plaintiff's equal protection rights against Defendants De La Cruz and Haroun (Claim III). However, it also found Plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claims for relief against any other Defendant. (Id. at 7-16.) Plaintiff was given 21 days to elect one of the following options: (1) to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the order; (2) to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on those claims found cognizable by the Court; or (3) to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 16-17.)
On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed notice electing to proceed on Claims I, II and III against named Defendants Haroun and De La Cruz and indicating he did not intend to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 22.)
II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the Court's screening order (Doc. 21), the Court RECOMMENDS that:
1. Defendants Kathleen Allison, Ralph Diaz, Theresa Cisneros, Stuart Sherman, and Howard E. Moseley be DISMISSED; and,
2. The claims in Plaintiff's first amended complaint be DISMISSED, except for the claims alleging a violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights against Defendants De La Cruz and Haroun, and a violation of Plaintiff's equal protection rights against Defendants De La Cruz and Haroun.
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)(1). 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.