Opinion
1:17-cv-01460-DAD-GSA-PC
08-19-2018
WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. K. LIGNOSKI, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT LIGNOSKI, ON PLAINTIFF'S MAIL INTERFERENCE CLAIM, AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS BE DISMISSED OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS
William J. Gradford ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint names defendant Deputy K. Lignoski as the sole defendant and alleges claims for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and interference with Plaintiff's mail in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
On August 6, 2018, the court screened Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it states a cognizable claim under § 1983 for interference with Plaintiff's mail against defendant Lignoski, but no other claims. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff was granted leave to either file an amended complaint or notify the court that he is willing to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the court. (Id.) On August 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the court that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable mail interference claim against defendant Lignoski. (ECF No. 16.)
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action proceed only against defendant Deputy K. Lignoski for interference with Plaintiff's mail in violation of the Sixth Amendment;
2. All remaining claims be dismissed from this action;
3. Plaintiff's claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; and
4. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process.
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)(1). Within fourteen (14) 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: August 19 , 2018
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE