(PC) Taylor v. Haroun, No. 1:2021cv01109 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 23 Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Certain Defendants and Claims signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 06/01/2023. De La Cruz added. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOE ALFRED TAYLOR, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. AYUB HAROUN, et al., 15 Case No. 1:21-cv-01109-ADA-CDB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS (ECF No. 23) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Joe Alfred Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 20, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s First Amendment 22 claim against Defendants De La Cruz and Haroun, and his claim asserting an equal protection 23 violation against Defendants De La Cruz and Haroun. (ECF No. 23.) The Magistrate Judge 24 provided Plaintiff 14 days within which to file any objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 (Id. at 2.) On February 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed his objections to the findings and recommendations. 26 (ECF No. 24.) 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 28 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including Plaintiff’s objections, 1 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 2 analysis. 3 In his objections, it appears that Plaintiff no longer wishes to proceed on only Claims I, II, 4 and III against Defendants Haroun and De La Cruz. (See ECF No. 24.) Rather, Plaintiff seems to 5 retract his notice, (ECF No. 22), to proceed on the claims that satisfied the first screening order, 6 (ECF No. 21), and objects to the dismissal of the other claims and defendants, particularly 7 Defendants Sherman and Cisneros. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant Cisneros had been 8 provided Plaintiff’s administrative grievance and independently chose to allow Plaintiff’s 9 deprivation of a religious diet to continue. (Id. at 2.) However, Plaintiff failed to file a second 10 amended complaint to state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 11 constitutional rights, as required in the first screening order, dated December 23, 2022. (See ECF 12 No. 21.) The time, 21 days from service of the orders, has passed. Plaintiff’s objections do not 13 identify the factual allegations in his first amended complaint that indicate the named defendant’s 14 linkage and causation in the alleged constitutional violations. Upon reviewing the first amended 15 complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff refers to Defendants generally and does not sufficiently 16 allege with particularity each Defendant’s alleged unlawful conduct. Therefore, the Court adopts 17 the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in full. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 20, 2023, (ECF No. 23), are 20 ADOPTED in full; 21 2. The claims in Plaintiff’s complaint are DISMISSED, except for the claims alleging a 22 violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights against Defendants De La Cruz and 23 Haroun (Claims I & II) and a violation of Plaintiff’s equal protection rights against 24 Defendants De La Cruz and Haroun (Claim III), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 25 3. Defendants Kathleen Allison, Ralph Diaz, Theresa Cisneros, Stuart Sherman and 26 Howard E. Mosely are DISMISSED from this action; and 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 2 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 1, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.