Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01795/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01795-3/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

RONNIE FRANKLIN ONLEY,

Plaintiff,

v. 

D. DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01795-EFB (PC)

ORDER AND 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 January 6, 2023, the court informed plaintiff that he could proceed 

with potentially cognizable due process claims against defendants Davis and Dohoda, a 

potentially cognizable Fourth Amendment claim against defendant Davis, and a potentially 

cognizable retaliation claim against defendant John Doe or he could file an amended complaint in 

an effort to also state additional claims, including claims against defendants Rocha, Kelly, and 

Anderson. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff initially elected to amend his complaint but subsequently 

notified the court or his intention to proceed only with the claims identified by the court.1

 ECF 

Nos. 14 & 15. 

/////

1 Plaintiff notes that he may amend the complaint if he learns the identity of the Doe 

defendants through discovery. See ECF No. 15. 

Case 2:22-cv-01795-WBS-EFB Document 16 Filed 02/28/23 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 ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States 

District Judge to this case.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Rocha, Kelly, 

and Anderson 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: February 28, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-01795-WBS-EFB Document 16 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 2