(PC) Townsend v. Rendon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR D. TOWNSEND, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01120-SAB (PC) )

Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO v. ) RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION

M. RENDON, et al., ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants. ) RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN ) CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS ) ) (ECF Nos. 8, 9) )

Plaintiff Arthur D. Townsend is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On August 25 2021, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that he stated cognizable retaliation and excessive force claims against Defendant M. Rendon. (ECF No. 9.) 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.)

On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable. (ECF No. 9.) Thus, the Court will recommend that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation excessive force claims against Defendant M. Rendon, and all other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action. 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).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this action.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed against Defendant M. Rendon for retaliation and excessive force: and

2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 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)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

A (Fe ! Dated: _ September 9, 2021 OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE