1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY JAMES PORTER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00105-KES-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS IN THE 13 v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

14 O. RIVAS, et al., 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Larry James Porter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 On March 1, 2024, the Court issued its Second Screening Order. (Doc. 48.) The Court 20 found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint plausibly alleges an Eighth Amendment deliberate 21 indifference to serious medical needs claim (claim one), a Fourteenth Amendment Equal 22 Protection Clause violation (claim three), and a state law equal protection violation (claim four), 23 against Defendant Rivas in her individual capacity. (Id. at 6-13.) Plaintiff failed to allege any 24 other cognizable claim against Defendant Rivas or any other defendant. Plaintiff was ordered to 25 select one of the following three options within 21 days of the date of service of the order: (1) to 26 notify the Court in writing that he did not wish to file a second amended complaint and was 27 willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim and federal and state equal protection claims against Defendant Rivas in her 1 | individual capacity; or (2) to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified 2 | by the Court in the screening order; or (3) to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. Ud. at 13-14.) 3 On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating he did not wish to file a second 4 | amended complaint and was willing to proceed “only on [his] cognizable Eighth Amendment, 5 || Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs, and Federal and State Equal Protection 6 | Violation claims against Defendant Rivas, pursuant to the [Second] Screening Order received 7 | from” the Court. (Doc. 52.) 8 I. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Second Screening Order, the Court 10 | RECOMMENDS that: 11 1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 12 to serious medical needs claim (claim one), Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection 13 Clause violation (claim three), and a state law equal protection violation (claim four), 14 against Defendant Rivas in her individual capacity; and 15 2. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff's first amended complaint be DISMISSED. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 17 || this case, pursuant to

(b)(1). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 18 | Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 19 | document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 20 | Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 21 | rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 22 | Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ March 19, 2024 | hannD Pr 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28