Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02088/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02088-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carl Ethridge
Plaintiff
V. Lawrence
Defendant
C. Rasey
Defendant
Reyna
Defendant
F.A. Rodriguez
Defendant

Document Text:

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 Carl Ethrdige is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 16, 2013, the Court screening Plaintiff’s original complaint filed on December 

28, 2012, and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants F.A. 

Rodriguez, Reyna, C. Rasey, and V. Lawrence. However, Plaintiff did not state a cognizable 

retaliation claim against any of the additional unidentified Doe defendants and Plaintiff was granted 

the option of either filing an amended complaint or notifying the Court of his intent to proceed against 

the above-named defendants only. 

On March 12, 2014, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the retaliation 

against Defendants Rodriguez, Reyna, Rasey, and Lawrence only. (ECF No. 16.) Accordingly, as 

advised in the Court’s December 16, 2013, screening order, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the 

any of the unidentified “Doe” defendants and they must be dismissed from the action. 

CARL ETHRIDGE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02088-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

UNIDENTIFIED “DOE” DEFENDANTS

[ECF Nos. 13, 16]

Case 1:12-cv-02088-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 03/13/14 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

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all unidentified “Doe” defendants be dismissed from 

the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)

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 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: March 13, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02088-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 03/13/14 Page 2 of 2