(PC) Williams v. Castro

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT CURTIS WILLIAMS, III ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01617-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ) RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ) THIS ACTION CASTRO, et al., ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ) RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 15 Defendants. ) CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS ) 16 ) (ECF Nos. 14, 15) 17 Plaintiff Robert Curtis Williams, III is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19 On January 8, 2021, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s first complaint and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference against Defendant Regado for making death threats, and against Defendants Regado, Ruiz, and Castro for deliberate indifference to his safety and violation of the Equal Protection Clause. (ECF No. 14.) However, Plaintiff was advised that he failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff was advised that he could file an amended complaint or a notice of intent to proceed on the claim found to be cognizable. (Id.) 25 On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed against Defendant Regado for making death threats, and against Defendants Regado, Ruiz, and Castro for deliberate indifference to his safety and violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that this action proceed only against Defendants Regado, Ruiz, and Castro. 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).

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

5 Further, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against Defendant 7 Regado for making death threats, and against Defendants Regado, Ruiz, and Castro f 8 deliberate indifference to his safety and violation of the Equal Protection Clause; and 9 2. All other claims and Defendants for relief are dismissed for failure to state a 10 cognizable claim.

11 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)).

19 IS SO ORDERED.

A (Se _ ll Dated: _ February 1, 2021 OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE