(PC) Howell v. Ceballos

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KAREEM J. HOWELL ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01353-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 13 v. ) RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION I. CEBALLOS, et al., ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. ) RECOMMENDING THIS ACTION PROCEED ) ON PLAINTIFF’S ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 16 ) AGAINST DEFENDANT VERA ONLY AND ) ALL OTHER CLAIMS BE DISMISSED 17 ) ) [ECF Nos. 1, 8, 9] 18 ) 19 Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21 On October 7, 2019, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Vera for retaliation and deliberate indifference; and against Defendant Allison for retaliation and deliberate indifference; Defendant Ceballos for retaliation, excessive force, and deliberate indifference; Defendant Medina for retaliation and excessive force; Defendant Fugate for excessive force; and an unidentified correctional officer for retaliation and deliberate indifference. (ECF No. 8.) However, Plaintiff was advised that his claims against Defendant Vera were not properly joined under Rule 18 and 20 with the other claims identified 1 this action. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff was advised that he could file an amended complaint or a || notice of intent to proceed on the claim against Defendant Vera or the other claims against the other || defendants that were found to be cognizable. (Id.) 4 On October 24, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the claims agains || Defendant Vera and to dismiss all other claims from the action. (ECF No. 9.) Accordingly, the Cour || will recommend that this action proceed against Defendant Vera for retaliation and deliberate indifference. 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, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).

9 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a District || Judge to this action.

11 Further, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. This action proceed against Defendant Vera for retaliation and deliberate indifference 13 and 14 2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim 15 for relief.

16 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)(). 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 21 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

24 IS SO ORDERED.

A (re Dated: _ October 29, 2019 OF 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE