(PC) Powell v. Lynch

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ADAM RANDOLPH POWELL, No. 2:22-CV-1493-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JEFF LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1.

19 On July 31, 2023, the Court issued an order addressing the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s complaint. See ECF No. 10. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable Eighth Amendment claims as alleged in Claim I and Claim III of the complaint against Defendant Lynch arising from events occurring between December 2021 and February 2022 at California State Prison -- Sacramento. See id. The Court also determined that Plaintiff’s remaining claims as alleged in Claim II and as against Defendants Pierce and Lively are insufficient. See id. Plaintiff was provided leave to amend and cautioned that, if no amended complaint was filed within the 30-day time period provided therefor, the action would proceed on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Lynch as alleged in Claim I and Claim III and that the Court would recommend dismissal of all other claims and defendants. See id. As of November 2, |} 2023, Plaintiff had not filed an amended complaint and the Court directed service on Defendant || Lynch consistent with the July 31, 2023, order. See ECF No. 13. The Court now recommends || dismissal of all remaining claims and defendants.

4 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends as follows: 5 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, as to □□□□□□□□□□□ || Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Lynch as alleged in Claim I and Claim III.

7 2. Plaintiff's Claim II be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

8 3. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Pierce and Lively be DISMISSED for || failure to state a claim.

10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within 14 days || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections.

14 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 15 Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

17 | Dated: January 11, 2024 Co 18 DENNIS M. COTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE