Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01060/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01060-6/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 

ANTWONE LOVEST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RALPH DIAZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1060-EFB P 

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 April 15, 2020, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint had 

alleged, for screening purposes, viable equal protection and retaliation claims against defendant 

LaRosa, but had not alleged any viable claims against any other defendants. ECF No. 20. The 

court informed plaintiff he could proceed with the viable claims only or file an amended 

complaint within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff has elected to proceed only with the viable claims against 

defendant LaRosa. ECF No. 21. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk shall randomly assign a United States 

District Judge to this case. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01060-TLN-JDP Document 22 Filed 05/04/20 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 

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Diaz, Lizarraga, 

Knight, Charon, and Walizer 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: May 4, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-01060-TLN-JDP Document 22 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 2