(PC) Davis v. Mendoza, et al., No. 1:2019cv01142 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that All Claims be Dismissed, Except for Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendant Department of Adult Parole Operations in Hanford, California for Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act; Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/19/2019. Objections if any due within FOURTEEN (14) Days. (Orozco, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 CHARLES LAKE DAVIS, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 v. JESSE MENDOZA, et al., Defendants. 13 14 Case No. 1:19-cv-01142-DAD-EPG (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT ALL CLAIMS BE DISMISSED, EXCEPT FOR PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF ADULT PAROLE OPERATIONS IN HANFORD, CALIFORNIA FOR VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND THE REHABILITATION ACT (ECF Nos. 7, 8) 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 18 Plaintiff, Charles Lake Davis, currently incarcerated at the Kings County Jail, is 19 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 20 § 1983. 21 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on August 21, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) 22 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 7.) The Court found that Plaintiff’s 23 complaint states cognizable claims against Defendant Department of Adult Parole Operations 24 in Hanford, California, for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 25 Rehabilitation Act. The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable 26 claims. (Id.) 27 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found 28 cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the 1 1 complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge 2 consistent with the screening order. (Id.) On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court 3 that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the screening order. (ECF 4 No. 8.) Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 5 6 November 5, 2019 (ECF No. 7), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he is willing 7 to proceed only his claims against Defendant Department of Adult Parole Operations in 8 Hanford, California, for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation 9 Act. (ECF No. 8), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims be dismissed, except for 10 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Department of Adult Parole Operations in Hanford, 11 California, for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 14 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 15 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 16 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 17 within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 18 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 19 1991)). 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 19, 2019 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.