Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01109/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01109-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

JOE ALFRED TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff,

v.

AYUB HAROUN, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01109-ADA-CDB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND 

CLAIMS

(Doc. 21.)

Plaintiff Joe Alfred Taylor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 23, 2022, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 21.) The Court 

found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint stated cognizable claims for a violation of Plaintiff’s 

First Amendment rights against Defendants De La Cruz and Haroun (Claims I & II) and a 

violation of Plaintiff’s equal protection rights against Defendants De La Cruz and Haroun (Claim 

III). However, it also found Plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claims for relief against 

any other Defendant. (Id. at 7-16.) Plaintiff was given 21 days to elect one of the following 

options: (1) to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the order; (2) 

to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on those claims found cognizable by the 

Court; or (3) to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 16-17.) 

Case 1:21-cv-01109-KES-CDB Document 23 Filed 01/20/23 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

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed notice electing to proceed on Claims I, II and III 

against named Defendants Haroun and De La Cruz and indicating he did not intend to file a 

second amended complaint. (Doc. 22.) 

II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 21), the 

Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. Defendants Kathleen Allison, Ralph Diaz, Theresa Cisneros, Stuart Sherman, and 

Howard E. Moseley be DISMISSED; and, 

2. The claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be DISMISSED, except for the 

claims alleging a violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights against Defendants 

De La Cruz and Haroun, and a violation of Plaintiff’s equal protection rights against 

Defendants De La Cruz and Haroun. 

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: January 20, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01109-KES-CDB Document 23 Filed 01/20/23 Page 2 of 2