Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00262/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00262-9/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

AKIVA AVIKAIDA ISRAEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RABBI SHMARY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-0262-TLN-EFB P

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 January 19, 2022, the court informed plaintiff that she could proceed 

with certain claims against defendants Brownstein, Eshelman, Muhammed, Safanov, Lainez, 

Richey, and Lee, or she could file an amended complaint in an effort to also state claims against 

defendants Warden Covello, Chief Deputy Warden Holmes, Assistant Wardens Williams and 

Huser, and CDCR Secretary Kathleen Allison. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff has elected not to amend 

her complaint and to proceed only with the claims identified by the court. ECF No. 29. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:21-cv-00262-TLN-EFB Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 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

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Warden 

Covello, Chief Deputy Warden Holmes, Assistant Wardens Williams and Huser, and CDCR 

Secretary Kathleen Allison 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: February 2, 2022.

Case 2:21-cv-00262-TLN-EFB Document 30 Filed 02/02/22 Page 2 of 2