(PC) Garcia v. Moreno et al, No. 1:2018cv00014 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign a District Judge to This Action (This case has been assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. The new case number is 1:18-cv-14-DAD-SAB); FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Certain Claims, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/13/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LENIN GARCIA, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, v. E. MORENO, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-00014-SAB (PC) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS [ECF Nos. 1, 10, 11] Plaintiff Lenin Garcia is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 29, 2017. On March 2, 2018, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated a 20 cognizable claim for failure to protect against Defendants E. Moreno, Pena, H. Hinojosa, Segura and 21 M. Silva, a cognizable claim for excessive force against Defendant Moreno, a cognizable claim for 22 retaliation against Defendants Moreno, Pena, Hinojosa, Segura and E. Silva, and a cognizable claim 23 for failure to decontaminate his cell against Defendants D. Hick, M. Harris, and E. Silva. (ECF No. 24 10.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his intent to 25 proceed on the claims found to be cognizable. (Id.) 26 On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed only on the claims 27 found to be cognizable. (ECF No. 11.) As a result, the Court will recommend that this action only 28 proceed on the claim identified above, and all other claims be dismissed for the reasons stated in the 1 1 Court’s March 2, 2018 screening order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 2 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 3 (9th Cir. 2010). 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants E. Moreno, Pena, H. 6 Hinojosa, Segura and M. Silva for failure to protect, against Defendant Moreno for 7 excessive force, against Defendants Moreno, Pena, Hinojosa, Segura and E. Silva for 8 retaliation, and against Defendants D. Hick, M. Harris, and E. Silva for failure to 9 decontaminate his cell. 2. 10 All other claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, consistent with the Court’s March 2, 2018 order; and 11 12 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. 13 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within fourteen (14) days 15 after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 16 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” 17 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 18 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 19 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: 23 March 13, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.