Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01205/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01205-3/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FLOYD SEALY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AVILA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1205-JAM-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 10, 2020, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint had 

alleged, for screening purposes, viable claims against defendants Amarillas, Simmons, Avila, 

Giardino, Her, and Rocke, but had not alleged any viable claims against defendant Miller. ECF 

No. 18. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed with the claims against defendants 

Amarillas, Simmons, Avila, Giardino, Her, and Rocke or file an amended complaint within 30 

days. Id. Plaintiff has elected to proceed only with the claim against defendants Amarillas, 

Simmons, Avila, Giardino, Her, and Rocke. See ECF No. 19. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01205-DAD-JDP Document 20 Filed 04/03/20 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 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Miller be 

dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: April 2, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-01205-DAD-JDP Document 20 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 2