(PC) Allen v. Dean et al, No. 1:2021cv01150 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Certain Claims and Defendants be Dismissed, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/06/2021. Referred to Judge Unassigned DJ. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen-Days. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 JAMES D. ALLEN, aka LLORD J.P. ALLEN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01150-NONE-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 11 12 13 14 v. RASHUAN Q. DEAN, et al., Defendants. 15 16 17 18 (ECF NOS. 1 & 12) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS James D. Allen, also known as Llord Allen (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on July 29, 2021. (ECF No. 1). 19 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 12). The Court found that only the 20 following claims should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s First Amendment 21 retaliation claim against defendant Dean. (Id.). 22 The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either: “a. File a First Amended Complaint; b. 23 Notify the Court in writing that he does not want to file an amended complaint and instead 24 wants to proceed only on his First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Dean; or c. 25 Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his complaint.” (Id. at 15-16). On 26 December 2, 2021, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on his First 27 Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Dean. (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff also stated that 28 all other claims should be dismissed. 1 1 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 2 November 12, 2021 (ECF No. 12), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 3 proceed only on his First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Dean (ECF No. 16), it 4 is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for 5 Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Dean. 6 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 7 judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 8 fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 9 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 10 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 11 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 12 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 13 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 6, 2021 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.