Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00114/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00114-1/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

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

Plaintiff Kareen J. Howell is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 4, 2020, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff 

stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants Medina, Bennett, J. Burnes, J. Navarro, A. 

Randolph, and J. Gallagher. (ECF No. 12.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended 

complaint or notify the Court of intent to proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable. (Id.) 

On February 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the retaliation claim found 

to be cognizable and dismiss all other claims and Defendants. (ECF No. 13.) Accordingly, the Court 

will recommend that this action proceed against Defendants Medina, Bennett, J. Burnes, J. Navarro, 

A. Randolph, and J. Gallagher for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment , and all other claims 

KAREEM J. HOWELL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MEDINA, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00114-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

THIS ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

[ECF Nos. 12, 13]

Case 1:20-cv-00114-NONE-SAB Document 15 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 2
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

for relief be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly 

assign a Fresno District Judge to this action.

Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed against Defendants Medina, Bennett, J. Burnes, J. Navarro, A. 

Randolph, and J. Gallagher for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action; and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 (14) days

after being served with these 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, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00114-NONE-SAB Document 15 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 2