(PC)Sharpley v. Malec et al, No. 1:2018cv01122 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Randomly ASSIGN a District Judge to this Action; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Certain Claims signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/19/2018. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due within Fourteen (14) Days. The new case number is 1:18-cv-01122-SAB(PC). (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST HOWARD SHARPLEY, III. 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 MALEC, et.al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-01122-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, 7, 9] Plaintiff Ernest Howard Sharpley, III. is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 31, 2018, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff 20 stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants Malec and Boardman. (ECF No. 7.) 21 However, Plaintiff did not state any other claims for relief. (Id.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to 22 amend the complaint or notify the Court in writing of his intent to proceed only the retaliation claim. 23 (Id.) On September 17, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed only on the 24 retaliation claim. (ECF No. 9.) As a result, the Court will recommend that this action only proceed on 25 the retaliation claim against Defendants Malec and Boardman, and all other claims be dismissed for 26 the reasons stated in the Court’s August 31, 2018 screening order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. 27 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. 28 Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 1 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendants Malec and Boardman; 3 2. 4 All other claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, consistent with the Court’s August 31, 2018 order; and 5 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. 7 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within fourteen (14) days 9 after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 10 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff 11 is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 12 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 13 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: 17 September 19, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.