Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01252-3/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

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

LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

ISAAC GONZALEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01252-LJO-EPG-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION

PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

GONZALEZ AND MARTINEZ ON 

PLAINTIFF=S DENIAL OF ACCESS TO 

COURTS CLAIMS AND THAT ALL OTHER 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 

DISMISSED

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN TWENTY

DAYS

LaCedric W. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The case now proceeds on the 

Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on April 22, 2016. (ECF No. 13.) The Second

Amended Complaint names defendants Isaac Gonzalez and A. Martinez and alleges federal and 

state claims for denial of access to courts in violation of the First Amendment.

1

The Court screened Plaintiff=s Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

' 1915A and found that it states cognizable claims against Defendants Gonzalez and Martinez. 

(ECF No. 14.) On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff was told to either notify the Court that he is 

 

1 The First Amended Complaint also named a third defendant, J. Benavides. Benavides is not named in the Second 

Amended Complaint.

Case 1:14-cv-01252-LJO-EPG Document 16 Filed 09/26/16 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

willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court or to notify the Court that 

he does not agree to proceed only on the cognizable claims, subject to a recommendation that 

the non-cognizable claims be dismissed from the action. Id. On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed a notice informing the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable First 

Amendment claims against defendants Gonzalez and Martinez. (ECF No. 15.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed only against defendants Gonzalez and Martinez on 

Plaintiff’s denial of access to court claim and related state claims;

2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;

3. Plaintiff’s claim for procedural due process be dismissed from this action based 

on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and

4. Defendant J. Benavides be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure 

to state any claims against them.

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

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to 

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is 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: September 26, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01252-LJO-EPG Document 16 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 2