(PC)Carroll v. Williams

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARVIE B. CARROLL, Case No. 1:19-cv-00674-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION A. WILLIAMS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 15 Defendant. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 16 (ECF Nos. 9, 10) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 19 Plaintiff Arvie B. Carroll is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21 On October 4, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Williams for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 9.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court in writing of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claim. (Id. at 10-11.)

26 On October 18, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court on October 4, 2019. (ECF No. 10.)

28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court will recommend that this action proceed only against Defendant | Williams for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and that all other claims be | dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. | v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010).

5 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly | assign a Fresno District Judge to this action.

7 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff's complaint, filed on May 16, 2019, (ECF No. 1), 9 against Defendant Williams for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 10 and 11 2. All other claims be dismissed from the action for failure to state a cognizable 12 claim for relief.

13 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen | (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written || objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s | Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the || specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual | findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED. F- 2 ee | Dated: _ October 23, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE