1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES PLUNKETT, No. 2:24-cv-1936 DAD CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 W. VAUGHN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to

1983 against employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). 19 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to

(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 23) is before the court for screening. 21 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 23 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 26 Having conducted the required screening, the court finds that plaintiff should be permitted 27 to proceed on claims for denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 28 defendants Lehil and Bailey. Plaintiff also alleges defendants discriminated against plaintiff 1 | because plaintiff is transgender. However, plaintiff fails to point to any facts which reasonably 2 || suggest as much 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims other than claims for 4 || denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Lehil and Bailey 5 || be dismissed. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 8 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 9 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 10 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 11 || time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

(9th 12 | Cir. 1991). 13 | Dated: October 14, 2025 / ae □□ / a Ly a

15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 1 19 plun1936.1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28