Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00906/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00906-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRADTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00906-AWI-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Clarence Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 11, 2010, the Court

issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint stated some cognizable claims

against certain Defendants. (Doc. #23.) The Court noted that Plaintiff failed to state any other

claims against anyother Defendants. The Court ordered Plaintiff either to file an amended complaint

or to notify the Court that he wished to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. On April

12, 2010, Plaintiff notified the Court that he does not wish to amend and is willing to proceed only

on the claims found to be cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, these Findings and

Recommendations now issue. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner

must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state

a claim).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

///

///

1

Case 1:05-cv-00906-AWI-SAB Document 26 Filed 04/15/10 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

1. Plaintiff’s due process claims and equal protection claims be dismissed, and

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims against Defendants Calderon and Gradillo be

dismissed; and

2. Defendants Calderon and Gradillo be dismissed from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations are 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 thirty (30)

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 served and filed within ten (10) 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:05-cv-00906-AWI-SAB Document 26 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2