(PC) Bahena v. Rodriguez et al, No. 1:2020cv01685 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign District Judge to This Action; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/14/2021. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESMELING BAHENA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01685-SAB (PC) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 12) Plaintiff Esmeling Bahena is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 11, 2021, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that he stated 21 cognizable failure to protect claim against Defendants Farlon, Rodriguez, Stan and Hernandez, and a 22 cognizable excessive force claim against Defendant Harmon. (ECF No. 8.) However, Plaintiff was 23 advised that he failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff was advised that 24 he could file an amended complaint or a notice of intent to proceed on the claim found to be 25 cognizable. (Id.) 26 On April 13, 2021, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the claims found to 27 be cognizable. (ECF No. 12.) Accordingly, the Court will recommend that this action proceed on 28 Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim against Defendants Farlon, Rodriguez, Stan and Hernandez, and 1 1 excessive force claim against Defendant Harmon. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 2 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 3 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a District 4 5 Judge to this action. 6 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim against Defendants Farlon, Rodriguez, Stan and Hernandez, and excessive force claim Defendant Harmon; a nd 8 2. 9 All other claims and Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days 12 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 13 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 14 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 15 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 16 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: 20 April 14, 2021 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.