Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00624-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEREK TATE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIANA NAKASHYAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00624 SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS

14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Derek Tate is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 28, 2023, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 17.) The Court 

found Plaintiff’s complaint stated the following cognizable claims: First Amendment retaliation 

claims against Defendants Nakashyan and Custer, a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due 

process claim against Defendant Custer, and a Fifth Amendment Equal Protection claim against 

Defendant Nakashyan. (Id. at 6-10.) The Court further found Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state 

any other cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff was given 21 days to 

elect one of the following options: (1) file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies 

identified in the order; (2) notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found 

cognizable by the Court; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 11.) 

Case 1:22-cv-00624-SKO Document 20 Filed 04/18/23 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply to the Court’s screening order, electing “to 

proceed only on his First Amendment retaliation claims; Fourteenth Amendment due process 

claim; Fifth Amendment Equal Protection claim.” (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff states he “does not wish to 

amend his complaint, and will proceed only on those cognizable claims found in his initial 

complaint.” (Id.) 

II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this 

action. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s First Screening Order (Doc. 17), the Court 

RECOMMENDS as follows:

1. That this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against 

Defendants Nakashyan and Custer, Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process 

claim against Defendant Custer, and Fifth Amendment Equal Protection claim against 

Defendant Nakashyan; and 

2. That the remaining claims in Plaintiff’s complaint filed May 13, 2022 (Doc. 1) be 

DISMISSED. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 

service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the 

Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00624-SKO Document 20 Filed 04/18/23 Page 2 of 2