(PC) Cohea v. Adams et al, No. 1:2008cv01186 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: **VACATED Pursuant to 30 Order** FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 8/13/09: Recommending that Plaintiff's Equal Protection and Due Process claim be dismissed; Defendant Guzman be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims against him 1 ; Objections to F&R due by 9/15/2009. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Cohea v. Adams et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DANNY JAMES COHEA, 10 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01186-LJO-YNP-SMS (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 12 v. D. ADAMS, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2009, the Court issued an order finding that 18 Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims against certain Defendants for retaliation and access 19 to the courts, but does not state a cognizable claim for due process and equal pProtection and does 20 not state any claims against Defendant Guzman. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an 21 amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be 22 cognizable. On June 4, 2009, Plaintiff notified the Court that he does not wish to amend and is 23 willing to proceed on the claims found cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, this Findings and 24 Recommendations now issues. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner 25 must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state 26 a claim). 27 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 28 1. Plaintiff’s Equal Protection and Due Process claim be dismissed. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2. 2 Defendant Guzman be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against him. 3 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 5 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 6 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 7 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 8 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 9 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: icido3 August 13, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
