Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER BAKER, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:16-cv-01540-MJS (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE 

TO ASSIGN MATTER TO A DISTRICT 

JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 

PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE 

FIRST AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT 

CLAIM AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS 

AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED

(ECF No. 1)

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971). On January 30, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it

states a cognizable claim for damages against Defendant Baker for excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, 

but no other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended 

complaint or notify the Court in writing if he wished to proceed only on the cognizable 

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 15 Filed 02/28/17 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

claims. (Id.) Plaintiff responded that he does not intend to amend and instead wishes to 

proceed with the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 13.)

However, Plaintiff has not responded to Court orders requiring him to consent to 

or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 2, 9). Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office 

is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign this matter to a district judge pursuant to 

Local Rule 120(e).

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed only on the cognizable First and Eighth 

Amendment claims for damages against Defendant Baker ; and

2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action for failure 

to state a claim.

These findings and recommendations will be 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 fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and 

recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 

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: February 28, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 15 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 2