Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01186/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01186-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY JAMES COHEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01186-LJO-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Danny James Cohea (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2009, the Court

issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint stated cognizable claims against Defendants VelaLopez, Kush, Jones, Hicinbothem, and Does 1-5 for retaliation and against Defendants Vela-Lopez,

Jones, Hicinbothem, and Adams for interfering with Plaintiff’s access to the courts. (Doc. #12.) The

Court noted that Plaintiff failed to state any other claims against any other Defendants. The Court

ordered Plaintiff either to file an amended complaint or to notify the Court that he wished to proceed

only on the claims found to be cognizable. On May 3, 2010, Plaintiff notified the Court that he does

not wish to amend and is willing to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. Based on

Plaintiff’s notice, these Findings and Recommendations now issue. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d

1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend

prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Equal Protection and Due Process claims be dismissed; and

1

Case 1:08-cv-01186-LJO -BAM Document 49 Filed 06/22/10 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. Defendant Guzman be dismissed from this 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 thirty (30)

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 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: June 22, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-01186-LJO -BAM Document 49 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2