Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01540/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01540-0/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

STEPHEN HOUK,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRYAN D. PHILLIPS, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-01540-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANT ALVA FOLLOWING 

SCREENING

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Stephen Houk is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

Following screening of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, the Court found Plaintiff 

stated a plausible Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Alvarado-Torres; 

Plaintiff, however, failed to allege any other cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Doc. 

8.) Plaintiff was directed to do one of the following: (1) notify the Court in writing that he did not 

wish to file a second amended complaint and was willing to proceed only on the Eighth 

Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Alvarado-Torres with the remaining 

claims against any defendant to be dismissed; (2) file a second amended complaint curing the 

deficiencies identified by the Court; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 8.) 

Case 1:23-cv-01540-JLT-SKO Document 11 Filed 11/13/24 Page 1 of 3
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 November 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice stating he did not wish to file a second 

amended complaint and was “willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment failure to protect 

claim against Defendant Alvarado-Torres, the remaining claims against any defendant to be 

dismissed.” (See Doc. 9.) 

II. DISCUSSION

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Second Screening Order (Doc. 8) issued October 

24, 2024, the Court will recommend that this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Alvarado-Torres, and that the remaining 

claims be dismissed. 

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to take the following actions:

1. Assign a district judge to this action; 

2. Add S. Alvarado-Torres as a defendant to the docket for this action as Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint identifies this individual as a named defendant; and 

3. Terminate Bryan D. Phillips, “CCL Inmate Counselor,” and “Food Services Manager” 

as named defendants on the docket for this action as Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint does not name these individuals as defendants and asserts no claims against 

them.

Further, the Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim 

against Defendant Alvarado-Torres; 

2. Defendant Alva be DISMISSED from this action; and 

3. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against any defendant be 

DISMISSED. 

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

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

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 

Case 1:23-cv-01540-JLT-SKO Document 11 Filed 11/13/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages

without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to 

the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference 

the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 

reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation 

may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time 

may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 

(9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01540-JLT-SKO Document 11 Filed 11/13/24 Page 3 of 3