Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00654/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00654-2/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

KAREEM J. HOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. GALLAGHER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-0654-NONE-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROCEED ONLY 

ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

(Doc. No. 13)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

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

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

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed May 14, 2019, alleges constitutional claims arising during his 

incarceration at California State Prison, Corcoran. (Doc. No. 1.) In a November 26, 2019,

screening order, the magistrate judge accurately summarized plaintiff’s allegations. (See Doc. 

No. 9 at 2–3.) Generally, plaintiff alleges that: (1) certain defendants (Burnes, Gallagher, 

Rodriguez, and Randolph) deprived plaintiff of food in retaliation for filing a separate lawsuit; 

(2) defendant Burnes refused to give plaintiff an inmate grievance form so that he could 

challenge the food deprivation; (3) defendants Burnes, Gamboa, and Ruiz attempted to gain 

access to plaintiff’s cell to physically assault him, but, upon failing to gain entry, Burnes verbally 

threatened plaintiff; and (4) on May 3, 2019, defendants Burnes, Rodriguez, and Ruiz 

Case 1:19-cv-00654-NONE-JLT Document 15 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 3
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

collaborated to pepper spray plaintiff in retaliation for the lawsuit he had brought as mentioned 

above, while defendants Loza and Burnes loudly accused plaintiff of being a snitch in front of 

other inmates. (Id.) The magistrate judge’s screening order concluded that plaintiff stated 

several cognizable claims, including: (1) an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of food against

defendants Burnes, Gallagher, Rodriguez, and Randolph; (2) a First Amendment retaliation claim 

against defendants Burnes, Loza, Rodriguez, and Ruiz; (3) an Eighth Amendment excessive use 

of force claim against defendants Ruiz and Rodriguez; and (4) an Eighth Amendment failure to 

protect claim against defendants Burnes and Loza. (Id. at 9–10). The magistrate judge further 

found that all other claims and defendants were not cognizable as pled, and gave plaintiff the 

option of electing to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order only or 

file an amended complaint. (Id. at 11.) 

On December 16, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice indicating that he wished to elect to 

proceed on only the claims found to be cognizable and not to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 

No. 10.) Accordingly, on January 9, 2019, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that the claims found to be cognizable be permitted to proceed, 

while the remaining claims be dismissed. (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and recommendations 

were served on plaintiff and contained notice to plaintiff that any objections thereto were to be 

filed within fourteen days. (See id.) Plaintiff has not filed objections.

The court has reviewed the file de novo in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304 and finds the F&Rs to be supported by the record and by the 

magistrate judge’s analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The F&Rs filed January 9, 2020, are adopted in full; and

2. This action shall proceed on the following claims: (1) an Eighth Amendment claim for 

denial of food against defendants Burnes, Gallagher, Rodriguez, and Randolph; (2) a First 

Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Burnes, Loza, Rodriguez, and Ruiz; (3) an 

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendants Ruiz and Rodriguez; and (4) an 

Case 1:19-cv-00654-NONE-JLT Document 15 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against defendants Burnes and Loza. All other claims 

and defendants are hereby dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00654-NONE-JLT Document 15 Filed 02/11/20 Page 3 of 3