(PC)Howell v. Randolph et al, No. 1:2019cv00735 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER adopting FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Non-Cognizable Claims 12 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/14/2020. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM J. HOWELL, No. 1:19-cv-0735-NONE-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIMS 14 A. RANDOLPH, et al., 15 (Doc. No. 12) Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 30, 2020, the magistrate judge screened complaint and found that some of the claims could proceed, while others were not cognizable as plead. (Doc. No. 10.) The magistrate judge provided plaintiff the option to stand on the complaint, proceed with it as screened, or file an amended complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a notice of his willingness to proceed on the complaint as screened and to dismiss the claims deemed non-cognizable. (Doc. No. 11.) The magistrate judge thereafter issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the non-cognizable claims, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 1 1 2 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 3 by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 4 that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 25, 2020 (Doc. 12), are adopted in 6 full; 7 2. This action shall proceed on a First Amendment retaliation claim against Correctional 8 Officers Rodriguez, Randolph, and Burnes, and a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process 9 claim against Correctional Officers Rodriguez and Randolph. 10 3. All other claims and defendants are hereby dismissed; and 11 4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 14, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 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.