1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARL BENTLY MARION II, Case No.: 1:24-cv-00872-KES-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. (Doc. 10) 14 EDGAR OREGEL, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 15 Defendants. DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOLLOWING SCREENING 16 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 17

18

19 Plaintiff Carl Bently Marion II is represented by attorney Michael R. Hayden in this civil 20 rights action pursuant to

. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On May 9, 2025, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 9.) The Court found 23 that Plaintiff’s complaint plausibly alleges an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to 24 serious medical needs claim against Defendant Merritt but fails to allege any other cognizable 25 claim against other named Defendant. (Id. at 4-26.) Plaintiff was ordered to do one of the 26 following within 21 days: (1) notify the Court in writing that he did not wish to file a first 27 amended complaint and was willing to proceed only on his cognizable claim against Defendant 1 amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the screening order; or (3) file a notice of 2 voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 26-27.) 3 On June 3, 2025, when Plaintiff did not respond to the screening order, the Court issued 4 its Order to Show Cause (OSC) in Writing Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed for 5 Plaintiff’s Failure to Obey Court Orders. (Doc. 10.) On June 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to 6 the OSC. (Doc. 11.) 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 In his response to the OSC, Plaintiff’s counsel states he has been unable to communicate 9 directly with Plaintiff “to update Plaintiff on the next course of action” due to Plaintiff’s 10 incarceration. (Doc. 11 at 1.) Counsel adds that “this matter has been on ‘hold’ with the Court 11 since August 7, 2024” when the Court issued its Order Striking Order Setting Mandatory 12 Settlement Conference and Order Vacating Initial Scheduling Conference Set for October 31, 13 2024 (see Doc. 8), and that order is the “last correspondence” he received “approximately ten 14 months ago.” (Id.) 15 Plaintiff’s counsel states his firm received a blank Amended Complaint form in the mail 16 (on an unidentified date) and now realizes that the screening order was filed electronically on 17 May 9, 2025.1 (Id. at 2.) Counsel states Plaintiff does not wish to amend the complaint and asks 18 the Court to “proceed on the claim found cognizable by the Court with the remaining claims to be 19 dismissed.” (Id. [emphasis omitted].) 20 The Court construes Plaintiff’s response to the OSC to be a notice to proceed on the claim 21 found cognizable by the Court. For all the reasons set forth in the Court’s First Screening Order 22 (Doc. 9) issued May 9, 2025, the Court will recommend that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s 23 Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant 24 Merritt only, with the remaining claims against any defendant to be dismissed. 25 26

27 1 Plaintiff’s counsel was served with the Court’s First Screening Order electronically on May 9, 2025, at 3:45 p.m., to [email protected]. 1 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 3 1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 4 to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Merritt; 5 2. Defendants Carlson, Cerda, Doe #1, Doe #2, Fishburn, Garcia, Gray, Hales, Moreno, 6 Nicholson, Oberst, Oregel, Rocha, Sherman, and Ward be DISMISSED from the 7 action;2 and 8 3. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s complaint against any defendant be DISMISSED. 9 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 10 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(l). Within 14 days 11 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 12 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 13 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages 14 without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to 15 the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference 16 the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 17 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation 18 may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations 19 under

(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time 20 may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 839 21 (9th Cir. 2014). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23

24 Dated: June 5, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25

26

27 2 Although Defendants Doe #1, Doe #2, Gary, Nicholson, Sherman, and Ward do not appear on the docket for this action, these individuals are named as Defendants in Plaintiff’s complaint. (See Doc. 1 at 1-4; see also Doc. 9 at 4.)