Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01144-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-1144 JLT SKO (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING THE 

CLERK OF COURT TO UPDATE THE 

DOCKET

(Doc. 25)

Lyralisa Lavena Stevens seeks to hold the defendants liable for civil rights violations 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found Plaintiff stated cognizable Fourteenth 

Amendment equal protection claims but no other cognizable claims. Therefore, the Court granted

Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint or proceed upon the claims found 

cognizable. (See generally Doc. 23.) In response, Plaintiff informed the Court that she was 

willing to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (Doc. 24.)

The magistrate judge then issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending this 

action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims against 

Defendants Martinez and Peterson and that the remaining claims be dismissed. The magistrate 

judge also recommended and that the docket be modified to add N. Peterson as a defendant

named in the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 25.)

Case 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO Document 26 Filed 12/08/23 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

The Court served Plaintiff the Findings and Recommendations and notified him that any 

objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 25 at 2.) The Court advised that the “[f]ailure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) To date, Plaintiff has not filed 

objections. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 

Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court 

ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 13, 2023 (Doc. 25) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. This action PROCEEDS only on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal 

protection claims against Defendants Martinez and Peterson.

3. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket in this action to add N. 

Peterson as a defendant.

5. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2023 

Case 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO Document 26 Filed 12/08/23 Page 2 of 2