(PC) Stevens v. Martinez

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS 13 v. C. MARTINEZ, 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff Lyralisa Lavena Stevens is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 9, 2023. (Doc. 20.)

21 In the Second Screening order issued October 23, 2023, the Court found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint plausibly alleged cognizable Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause claims against Defendants Martinez and Peterson. (Doc. 23.) However, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint failed to state any other cognizable claim against any defendant. (Id. at 4-10.) Plaintiff was ordered to select one of three options: (1) notify the Court in writing that she does not wish to file a second amended complaint and was willing to proceed only on the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims against Defendants Martinez and Peterson, the remaining claims against any defendant to be dismissed; or (2) file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in the Second Screening Order; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal.

2 (Id. at 11.)

3 On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating the election to proceed on the claims found cognizable by the Court and stated she did not wish to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 24.)

6 II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Second Screening Order (Doc. 23), the Court RECOMMENDS as follows: 9 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection 10 claims against Defendants Martinez and Peterson; 11 2. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed February 9, 2023, 12 (Doc. 20), be DISMISSED; and 13 3. The Clerk of the Court modify the docket in this action to add Defendant N. Peterson 14 as named in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.

15 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party 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.

24 Dated: November 9, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE