Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01144-5/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO (PC) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Plaintiff Lyralisa Lavena Stevens is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 9, 2023. (Doc. 20.) 

In the Second Screening order issued October 23, 2023, the Court found Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint plausibly alleged cognizable Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause 

claims against Defendants Martinez and Peterson. (Doc. 23.) However, Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint failed to state any other cognizable claim against any defendant. (Id. at 4-10.) Plaintiff 

was ordered to select one of three options: (1) notify the Court in writing that she does not wish to 

file a second amended complaint and was willing to proceed only on the Fourteenth Amendment 

equal protection claims against Defendants Martinez and Peterson, the remaining claims against 

any defendant to be dismissed; or (2) file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies 

Case 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO Document 25 Filed 11/13/23 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

identified by the Court in the Second Screening Order; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. 

(Id. at 11.) 

On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating the election to proceed on the 

claims found cognizable by the Court and stated she did not wish to file a second amended 

complaint. (Doc. 24.) 

II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Second Screening Order (Doc. 23), 

the Court RECOMMENDS as follows:

1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection 

claims against Defendants Martinez and Peterson;

2. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed February 9, 2023,

(Doc. 20), be DISMISSED; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court modify the docket in this action to add Defendant N. Peterson 

as named in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 

service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the 

Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO Document 25 Filed 11/13/23 Page 2 of 2