Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00800/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00800-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Melendrez
Defendant
Johnny Curtis Palmer
Plaintiff

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

JOHNNY CURTIS PALMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. MELENDREZ,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00800-CDB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS IN THE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Johnny Curtis Palmer is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 1, 2024, the Court issued its Second Screening Order. (Doc. 12.) The Court 

found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint plausibly alleges a First Amendment violation of his 

right to send and receive mail (Claim Two) against Defendant Melendrez but failed to allege any 

other cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id. at 3-6.) Plaintiff was ordered to select 

one of the following three options within 21 days of the date of service of the order: (1) to notify 

the Court in writing that he did not wish to file a second amended complaint and was willing to 

proceed only on the First Amendment claim (Claim Two) against Defendant Melendrez, with the 

remaining claims to be dismissed; or (2) to file a second amended complaint curing the 

deficiencies identified by the Court in the screening order; or (3) to file a notice of voluntary 

Case 1:22-cv-00800-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 02/16/24 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

dismissal. (Id. at 7-8.) 

On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating he was willing to proceed only on 

the claim found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 13.) 

II. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Second Screening Order, the Court 

RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim concerning the 

right to send and receive mail (Claim Two), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and

2. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended 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: February 16, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00800-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 02/16/24 Page 2 of 2