Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01797/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01797-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY MCDOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. RIVERA, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01797-LJO-MJS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED

(ECF NO. 13)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jerry McDowell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 6, 2013. 

(ECF No. 1.) On December 31, 2013, after reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness 

to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Sandoval, Garza, 

Fernandez, Guzman, Sanchez, and Acolla and First Amendment claim against 

Defendants Acolla and Fernandez. (ECF No. 7.) On March 5, 2014, Plaintiff notified the 

Court of his willingness to forgo an amended complaint and proceed with his cognizable 

claims. (ECF No. 13.)

Accordingly, all claims and Defendants in Plaintiffs Complaint, except for his 

Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Sandoval, Garza, Fernandez, Guzman, 

Case 1:13-cv-01797-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 03/28/14 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

Sanchez, and Acolla and First Amendment claim against Defendants Acolla and 

Fernandez, should now be dismissed.

The Court hereby RECOMMENDS the following:

1. Plaintiff be allowed to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim against 

Defendants Sandoval, Garza, Fernandez, Guzman, Sanchez, and Acolla and First 

Amendment claim against Defendants Acolla and Fernandez;

2. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Rivera and Patel

be dismissed; and

3. Defendants Rivera and Patel be dismissed from the action.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) 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." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) 

days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01797-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 03/28/14 Page 2 of 2