Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01563-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonel Hernandez
Plaintiff
J. Welch
Defendant

Document Text:

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

LEONEL HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WELCH,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Plaintiff Leonel Hernandez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 6, 2023. (Doc. 1.) On February 21, 2024, the 

Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 8.) The Court found Plaintiff plausibly alleged an 

Eighth Amendment threat to safety claim against Defendant Welch but failed to allege any other 

cognizable claim. (Id. at 4-9.) Plaintiff was ordered to do one of the following within 21 days of 

the date of service of the order: (1) notify the Court he did not wish to file a first amended 

complaint and was willing to proceed only on his cognizable claim against Defendant Welch; or 

(2) file a first amended complaint; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 9-10.) 

On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating he “would like to proceed only on the 

Eighth Amendment threat to safety claim, and decline the first [amended] complaint.” (Doc. 9.) 

Case 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO Document 10 Filed 03/05/24 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

II. DISCUSSION

For all the reasons provided in the Court’s First Screening Order (Doc. 8) issued February 

21, 2024, and in light of Plaintiff’s subsequent notice (Doc. 9), the Court will recommend this 

action proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment threat to safety claim against Defendant Welch, 

the remaining claims to be dismissed. 

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment threat to safety claim 

against Defendant Welch; and 

2. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the 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: March 5, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO Document 10 Filed 03/05/24 Page 2 of 2