(PC) Seymour v. Ledbetter, No. 1:2022cv00989 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Claim Three in Plaintiff's Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 05/31/2023. Referred to Judge Thurston; Objections to F&R due within Fourteen-Days. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON D. SEYMOUR, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CLAIM THREE IN PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (Docs. 13 & 14) LEDBETTER, 15 Case No.: 1:22-cv-00989-JLT-CDB (PC) Defendant. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 17 18 Plaintiff Aaron D. Seymour is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. 20 On May 16, 2023, this Court issued its Order Vacating Findings and Recommendations to RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 21 Dismiss Claim Three in Plaintiff’s Complaint and First Screening Order. (Doc. 13.) In its First 22 Screening Order, the Court found Plaintiff’s complaint stated cognizable First Amendment 23 retaliation (Claim I) and Eighth Amendment failure to protect (Claim II) claims against 24 Defendant Ledbetter, the sole defendant named in the action. (Id. at 3-6.) However, the Court 25 further found that Plaintiff had failed to allege compliance with the Government Torts Claim Act, 26 a prerequisite concerning Plaintiff’s state law claims for slander and/or defamation against 27 Ledbetter. (Id. at 6-8.) Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint to cure this deficiency 28 identified in Claim III, assuming he could do so in good faith. (Id. at 8.) Specifically, Plaintiff 1 was ordered to do one of the following within 21 days of service of the order: (1) to notify the 2 Court he does not wish to file a first amended complaint and is willing to proceed only on the 3 First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendant 4 Ledbetter with the remaining claims against any defendant to be dismissed; or (2) to file a first 5 amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the screening order; or (3) to file a notice 6 of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 9.) 7 On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice, under penalty of perjury, that he did “not wish 8 to file an amended complaint & would like to proceed only on the First Amendment retaliation & 9 Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendant Ledbetter.” (See Doc. 14.) 10 II. 11 Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 13), the 12 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Court RECOMMENDS that: 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation (Claim I) and 14 Eighth Amendment failure to protect (Claim II) claims against Defendant Ledbetter; 15 and, 16 2. The remaining claim (Claim III) against Defendant Ledbetter be DISMISSED. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 19 service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the 20 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 21 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 22 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 23 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: May 31, 2023 ___________________ _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.