Opinion
Case No. 1:17-cv-01632-AWI-JDP
08-17-2018
LOUIS A. ALARCON, Plaintiff, v. C. XOYOUDOM, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED, EXCEPT FOR THOSE SANCTIONED BY THE SCREENING ORDER (Doc. No. 1.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on December 7, 2017. (Doc. No. 1.) The court screened plaintiff's complaint and found that he stated cognizable claims for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against C. Xoyoudom and S. Arreguin; unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. Xoyoudom and S. Arreguin; deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. Sisodia and P. Rouch; and discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA against C. Xoyoudom, P. Rouch, and C. Sisodia. (Doc. No. 10, at 1-2.) The court found that plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Id).
The court allowed plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found cognizable by the court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 18-19.) On July 13, 2018, plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the screening order. (Doc. No. 11.)
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the court's screening order (Doc. No. 10), and because plaintiff has notified the court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims sanctioned by the court (Doc. No. 11), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for plaintiff's claims for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against C. Xoyoudom and S. Arreguin; unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. Xoyoudom and S. Arreguin; deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. Sisodia and P. Rouch; and discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA against C. Xoyoudom, P. Rouch, and C. Sisodia. (Doc. No. 10, at 1-2.)
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so in a document captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 17, 2018
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE