(PC) Howell v. Gallagher et al, No. 1:2019cv00673 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations that certain Claims and Defendants be Dismissed, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/30/2020. E. Ruiz (Correctional Officer), C. Gamboa (Correctional Officer) and P. Ridriguez (Correctional Officer) terminated. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM J. HOWELL, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. J. GALLAGHER, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00673-AWI-EPG ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED (ECF NO. 11) Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Kareem J. Howell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on May 16, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) 20 Magistrate Judge Erica Grosjean screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 9.) The court found 21 that only the following claims should proceed past the screening stage: “retaliation in violation of 22 the First Amendment against Defendant J. Burnes; conspiracy to retaliate in violation of the First 23 Amendment against Defendants J. Burnes, J. Gallagher, and A. Randolph; and harassment in 24 violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant J. Burnes.” (ECF No. 11, p. 2.) Plaintiff 25 stated to the Court that he wished to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the 26 screening order (ECF No. 10.) 27 28 Magistrate Judge Erica Grosjean accordingly issued findings and recommendations recommending that all claims and defendants be dismissed except for “Plaintiff’s claims for 1 1 retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendant J. Burnes; conspiracy to 2 retaliate in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants J. Burnes, J. Gallagher, and A. 3 Randolph; failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants J. Burnes, 4 J. Gallagher, and A. Randolph; and harassment in violation of the First Amendment against 5 Defendant J. Burnes.” (ECF No. 11, p. 2.) 6 7 Plaintiff was provided with an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations but did not do so. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 6369b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 9 Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 10 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 11 analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 22, 2019 (ECF No. 11) are 14 ADOPTED in full; and 15 2. All claims and Defendants are dismissed except for Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation in 16 violation of the First Amendment against Defendant J. Burnes; conspiracy to retaliate 17 in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants J. Burnes, J. Gallagher, and A. 18 Randolph; failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 19 J. Burnes, J. Gallagher, and A. Randolph; and harassment in violation of the First 20 Amendment against Defendant J. Burnes. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 30, 2020 SENIOR DISTRICT 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.