From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stevenson v. Curnel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 16, 2017
Case No.: 1:17-cv-00764-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00764-LJO-SAB (PC)

08-16-2017

GENGHIS KHAN ALI STEVENSON, Plaintiff, v. M. CURNEL, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THIS ACTION PROCEED AGAINST ON PLAINTIFF'S DUE PROCESS CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT RANDOLPH AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS [ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11]

Plaintiff Genghis Khan Ali Stevenson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On August 2, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's first amended complaint and found that it stated a cognizable due process claim against Defendant Randolph, but did not state any other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff was ordered to amend his complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court in that order, or notify the Court that he is agreeable to proceeding only on the claim identified as cognizable. (Id. at p. 11.)

On July 17, 2017, Plaintiff notified the Court that he will not amend his complaint, and agrees to proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable in the Court's August 2, 2017 screening order. (ECF No. 10.) As a result, the Court will recommend that Defendants M. Curnel, J. Caldwell, and M.L. Oliveria be dismissed from this action, and that it proceed only on the due process claim identified above for the reasons stated in the Court's August 2, 2017 screening order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action only proceed on Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Randolph for a due process violation; and

2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d 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 16 , 2017

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Stevenson v. Curnel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 16, 2017
Case No.: 1:17-cv-00764-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017)
Case details for

Stevenson v. Curnel

Case Details

Full title:GENGHIS KHAN ALI STEVENSON, Plaintiff, v. M. CURNEL, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 16, 2017

Citations

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00764-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017)