(PC) Grady v. Gutierrez et al, No. 1:2018cv00922 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff be Permitted to Proceed on Cognizable Claim and That Non-Cognizable Claims be Dismissed Without Prejudice re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 9/9/2019. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARQUISE GRADY, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. C. GUTIERREZ, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF BE PERMITTED TO PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND THAT NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 16 17 No. 1:18-cv-00922-DAD-JDP Plaintiff Marquise Grady is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 18 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 3, 2019, I screened Grady’s complaint and found 19 that he stated due process claims against defendants Gutierrez, Jaime, Voong, and Lee, but no 20 other claims. See ECF No. 10. That order gave Grady three options: (1) proceed only on the 21 claims found cognizable, (2) amend the complaint to add additional facts to make out additional 22 claims, or (3) stand on the current complaint subject to dismissal of claims and defendants. On 23 July 18, 2019, Grady filed a notice indicating his desire to proceed only on the claims deemed 24 cognizable. ECF No. 11. Accordingly, I recommend that his remaining claims be dismissed 25 without prejudice. 26 RECOMMENDATION 27 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), all parties named in a civil action must consent to a 28 magistrate judge’s jurisdiction before that jurisdiction vests for “dispositive decisions.” Williams 1 1 v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). No defendant has appeared or consented to a 2 magistrate judge’s jurisdiction in this case, so any dismissal of a claim requires an order from a 3 district judge. Id. Thus, the undersigned submits the following findings and recommendations 4 under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l): 5 1. Plaintiff states a cognizable due process claims against defendants Gutierrez, Jaime, 6 Voong, and Lee. 7 2. Plaintiff’s remaining claims should be dismissed without prejudice. 8 Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 9 written objections with the court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so in a document 10 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 11 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 12 on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 13 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: September 9, 2019 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 No. 205 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.