(PC)Howell v. Diaz et al, No. 1:2019cv01612 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER adopting Findings and Recommendations to dismiss non-cognizable claims and defendants 14 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/10/2020.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM HOWELL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 N. DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. No. 1:19-cv-1612-NONE-JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 14) CASE TO REMAIN OPEN 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 15, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that certain claims be permitted to proceed, while others be dismissed for failure 23 to state a claim. (Doc. No. 14.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 24 contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 25 filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff did not file objections; rather, he previously indicated his 26 desire to proceed with the complaint as screened and as set forth in the findings and 27 recommendations. (Doc. No. 13.) 28 ///// 1 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 1 1 2 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 3 ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 15, 2020 (Doc. 14), are adopted in 4 5 full; 2. This action shall proceed on the following claims: (1) a First Amendment retaliation 6 7 claim against Correctional Officer (“CO”) Diaz, CO Garcia, CO Linon, and CO Ceballos; (2) a 8 First Amendment mail mishandling claim against CO Diaz; (3) an Eighth Amendment 9 excessive force claim against CO Garcia and CO Ceballos; and (4) an Eighth Amendment 10 medical indifference claim against CO Ceballos; and 3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent 11 12 with this order. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 15 December 10, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 Although this case was stayed for 90 days so that the parties could pursue alternative dispute resolution, Doc. No. 18, the stay order assumes adoption of the findings and recommendations and therefore cannot be read to bar the court from acting on the findings and recommendations. 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.