Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00775/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00775-2/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

DIONTAE JOHAN DUNCAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHCF WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-00775-CKD

ORDER FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Pursuant to this court’s screening of plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a), the court found that the complaint stated cognizable claims against defendants Rivera 

and Seohol, but did not state a claim against defendants Johnson, McCloud, the CHCF Warden, 

and John Does 1-4. ECF No. 17. The court gave plaintiff the option of proceeding on his 

original complaint or filing an amended complaint that added a cognizable claim against 

defendants Johnson, McCloud, the CHCF Warden, and John Does 1-4. Plaintiff chose to proceed 

on his original complaint against defendants Rivera and Seohol, effectively choosing to terminate 

this action against defendants Johnson, McCloud, the CHCF Warden, and John Does 1-4.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall assign a district judge to 

this action.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants Johnson, McCloud, the CHCF Warden, and John Does 1-4 be dismissed 

Case 2:24-cv-00775-TLN-CKD Document 19 Filed 10/02/24 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

from this action for failing to state a claim against them.

2. The Clerk of Court update the docket to terminate these defendants from this action.

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.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: October 2, 2024

12/dunc0775.14option.fr

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00775-TLN-CKD Document 19 Filed 10/02/24 Page 2 of 2