United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2020

(PC) Snowden v. Tate

(PC) Snowden v. Tate
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided January 30, 2020
(PC) Snowden v. Tate

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL L. SNOWDEN, Case No.: 1:19-cv-00843-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT FOUND 13 v. COGNIZABLE H. TATE; M. TOSCANO, 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants.

Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge 17 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A and found that it states cognizable claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs but fails to state a cognizable due process claim. (Doc. 10.) The Court therefore directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in its order or notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on his retaliation and deliberate indifference claims. (Id.) 22 In response to the Court’s screening order, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court “remove the ‘due process violation claim’ and allow … [him] to proceed … [on his] deliberate indifference and retaliation [claims].” (Doc. 11 (emphases removed).) For this reason, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 10), the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s claims in this action be DISMISSED, except for his claims for retaliation and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the First and Eighth amendments.

1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of 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.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights 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.

10 Dated: January 30, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.