(PC) Alarcon v. Xoyatom, et al., No. 1:2017cv01632 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that All Claims and Defendants be Dismissed re 1 , Except for those Sanctioned by the Screening Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 8/17/18. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen-Days. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LOUIS A. ALARCON, Case No. 1:17-cv-01632-AWI-JDP 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 12 v. C. XOYOUDOM, et al., Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED, EXCEPT FOR THOSE SANCTIONED BY THE SCREENING ORDER 13 (Doc. No. 1.) 14 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on December 7, 2017. 19 (Doc. No. 1.) The court screened plaintiff’s complaint and found that he stated cognizable 20 claims for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against C. Xoyoudom and S. 21 Arreguin; unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment 22 against C. Xoyoudom and S. Arreguin; deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in 23 violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. Sisodia and P. Rouch; and discrimination in 24 violation of Title II of the ADA against C. Xoyoudom, P. Rouch, and C. Sisodia. (Doc. No. 10, 25 at 1-2.) The court found that plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Id). 26 The court allowed plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found 27 cognizable by the court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the 28 complaint subject to the court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge 1 1 consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 18-19.) On July 13, 2018, plaintiff notified the court 2 that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the screening order. (Doc. 3 No. 11.) Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the court’s screening order (Doc. No. 10), and 4 5 because plaintiff has notified the court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims 6 sanctioned by the court (Doc. No. 11), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and 7 defendants be dismissed, except for plaintiff’s claims for retaliation in violation of the First 8 Amendment against C. Xoyoudom and S. Arreguin; unconstitutional conditions of confinement 9 in violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. Xoyoudom and S. Arreguin; deliberate 10 indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. Sisodia 11 and P. Rouch; and discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA against C. Xoyoudom, P. 12 Rouch, and C. Sisodia. (Doc. No. 10, at 1-2.) 13 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 15 days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 16 with the court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so in a document captioned 17 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 18 failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 19 See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 20 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: 24 August 17, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.