(PC) Lamon v. Pfeiffer

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BARRY LOUIS LAMON, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00896-AWI-SAB (PC) 9 ) Plaintiff, ) 10 ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. ) RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 11 CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS C. PFEIFFER, et.al., ) 12 ) (ECF Nos. 22, 23) ) Defendants.

13 ) ) 15 Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17 On October 20, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for retaliation against Defendants Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach and Velasco, separate cognizable claims for failure to protect against Defendants Corona, Loera, Ramirez, Eaker, Luna Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Ronquillo, Luna, Rivera-Sierra and Clare, a cognizable Bane Act claim against Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco, and a cognizable intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Defendants Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco. (ECF No. 22.)

26 Plaintiff was granted the opportunity to file a second amended complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. (Id.) /// 1 On October 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable. 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).

4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff's separate claims for retaliation against Defendants || Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, || Bennett-Beach and Velasco, separate claims for failure to protect against Defendants Corona, Loera, || Ramirez, Eaker, Luna Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Ronquillo, Luna, Rivera-Sierra and Clare, || Bane Act claim against Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera- || Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco, and intentional infliction of || emotional distress claim against Defendants Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, || Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco; and 13 2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim || for relief.

15 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 || 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)).

23 ||} IT IS SO ORDERED.

A (re lI pated: _ October 30, 2020 OF 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE