(PC) Marta v. CDCR

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 JASON MARTA, 1:20-cv-00072-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS 13 v. CASE 14 CDCR, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 15 Defendant. PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT CDCR FOR VIOLATION OF THE ADA, AND 16 THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS BE DISMISSED OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS

21 Jason Marta (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (1994). On January 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff named only one defendant, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

26 The court screened the Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to either: (1) file an amended complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the ADA claim against CDCR found cognizable by the court, dismissing all other claims from this action. (ECF No. 8.)

1 On August 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice that he is willing to proceed only with the ADA claim against CDCR, and that he “seeks no § 1983/8th Amendment medical claim.” (ECF No. 9.)

3 /// 4 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district judge to this case; 6 and 7 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims against defendant CDCR for 9 violation of the ADA; 10 2. All remaining claims be dismissed from this action; 11 3. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment 12 be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon 13 which relief may be granted; and 14 4. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 15 including initiation of service of process.

16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 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.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

22 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: August 16, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE