Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01613/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01613-1/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

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

Plaintiff Kareem Howell is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On November 21, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated 

cognizable claims against Defendants I. Medina, J. Fugate and J. Navarro for retaliation in violation of 

the First Amendment and deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 8.) 

The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court in writing of his 

willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (Id.)

After receiving an extension of time, on January 14, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court of his 

willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims identified by the Court on October 4, 2019. 

(ECF No. 13.)

KAREEM HOWELL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

I. MEDINA, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01613-DAD-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

[ECF No. 13]

Case 1:19-cv-01613-DAD-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, the Court will recommend that this action proceed only against Defendants I. 

Medina, J. Fugate and J. Navarro for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and deliberate 

indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that all other claims and Defendants be 

dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on November 14, 2019, (ECF No. 1), 

against Defendants I. Medina, J. Fugate and J. Navarro for retaliation in violation of the 

First Amendment and deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 

and

2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to state a 

cognizable claim for relief.

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 (14) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

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

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” 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: January 17, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01613-DAD-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 2