(PC) Fernandez v. Satterfield

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JORGE FERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-01220-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. TO DISMISS DEFENDANT AND CLAIMS SATTERFIELD, et al., (Doc. 33) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 17 On July 2, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that it states cognizable claims of retaliation against Defendants Satterfield, Eslick, and Jackson in their individual capacities. (Doc. 32.) The Court found that the complaint’s claims against Defendant Salzer and its deliberate indifference, due process, and official-capacity claims were not cognizable. (Id.) The Court therefore directed Plaintiff, within 21 days, to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading or to notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (Id. 2, 9.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation “that this action proceed only on the claims found cognizable … and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed.” (Id. at 9.)

26 Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s screening order, and the time to do so has passed.

1 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that (1) Defendant Salzer be DISMISSED, and (2) the claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be DISMISSED, except for its claims of retaliation against Defendants Satterfield, Eslick, and Jackson in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

5 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.

14 Dated: September 3, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE