(PC) Cragg v. Garland

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 EDWARD PAUL CRAGG, Case No. 1:24-cv-01124-KES-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS 12 v. (ECF NO. 1) MERRICK GARLAND, et al., OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 14 Defendants. FOURTEEN DAYS 16 Plaintiff Edward Paul Cragg is a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of his pretrial detention at Taft Community Correctional Facility (Taft CCF). Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on September 20, 2024, generally alleging that Taft’s policy regarding indigent supply kits violates his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1).

21 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and issued a Screening Order on March 7, 2025. (ECF No. 6). The Court found that only Plaintiff’s claim for inadequate conditions of confinement under the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Officer B.R. Juarez, Officer A. Garcia, Sergeant S. Soliz, Defendant Brown, and Defendant Wilson should proceed past screening. (Id. at 1–2).

26 The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to either: 27 a. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to proceed only on the conditions of confinement claim against Defendants 28 B.R. Juarez, A. Garcia, S. Soliz, Brown, and Wilson; 1 b. File a First Amended Complaint; or c. File a notice stating that he wants to stand on his complaint. ° at 13). On April 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed notice that he wishes “to proceed only on the ; conditions of confinement claim against Defendants B.R. Juarez, A. Garcia, S. Soliz, Brown, ‘ and Wilson.” (ECF No. 8). ° Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on March 7, 2025 (ECF No. 6), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to ’ proceed only on the claim that the Court found should proceed past screening (ECF No. 8): 1. Itis RECOMMENDED that this case proceed on Plaintiffs on the conditions of confinement claim against Defendants B.R. Juarez, A. Garcia, S. Soliz, Brown, and 10 Wilson, and all other claims and defendants shall be dismissed.

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)(1). Within fourteen 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.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 15 '6 pages including exhibits. "7 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)).

21 IS SO ORDERED.

53 || Dated: _April 10, 2025 [spe hey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE