Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00782/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00782-5/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 

ADAM RANDOLPH POWELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0782 DJC AC P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On October 28, 2024, the court screened the second amended complaint and 

found that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Gomes and Camacho stated a claim while his 

claims against defendants Peterson, Leckie, Hayne, Pierce (male), and Pierce (female) were 

insufficient to proceed. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff was given the option of amending the complaint or 

proceeding immediately on his cognizable claims against defendants Gomes and Camacho. Id. at 

4. He was further advised that if he failed to notify the court how he wanted to proceed, the court 

would assume that he was choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and recommend 

dismissal without prejudice of defendants Peterson, Leckie, Hayne, Pierce (male), and Pierce 

(female). Id. at 5. The time for plaintiff to notify the court as to how he wishes to proceed has 

now passed, and plaintiff has not made an election or otherwise responded to the order. 

//// 

Case 2:21-cv-00782-DJC-AC Document 22 Filed 12/09/24 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 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. For the reasons set forth in the October 28, 2024 Screening Order (ECF No. 20 at 3-4), 

defendants Peterson, Leckie, Hayne, Pierce (male), and Pierce (female) be dismissed without 

prejudice. 

2. The Clerk of Court terminate defendants Peterson, Leckie, Hayne, Pierce (male), and 

Pierce (female) on the docket. 

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 twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: December 9, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-00782-DJC-AC Document 22 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 2