(PC) Williams v. Arias

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 1:25-cv-01249-CDB 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 13 v. DEFENDANTS 14 OFFICER ARIAS, et al., 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 15 Defendants. Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 16 17 18 Plaintiff Lance Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 On March 23, 2026, the Court issued its Second Screening Order, finding Plaintiff’s first 22 amended complaint states a plausible Fourteenth Amendment due process violation against 23 Defendant Aguirre and First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Arias, Peterson, 24 and Reynosa, but failed to allege any other cognizable claim against a named Defendant. (Doc. 25 8.) Plaintiff was directed to notify the Court whether he wished to proceed on the claims found 26 cognizable following screening, or to file a second amended complaint, or to file a notice of 27 voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 13-14.) 1 On April 1, 2026, Plaintiff notified the Court that he did not intend to file a second 2 amended complaint and instead wished to proceed on the cognizable claims identified by the 3 Court. (Doc. 9.) 4 Given Plaintiff’s decision to proceed on the cognizable claims presented in his first 5 amended complaint, the Court will recommend the action proceed on those claims. 6 II. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to: 8 1. Randomly assign a district judge to this action; and 9 2. Add R. Reynosa to the docket given Plaintiff named that person as a defendant in his 10 first amended complaint. 11 Further, for the reasons given above, this Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 12 1. This action PROCEED on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process violation 13 against Defendant Aguirre and First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants 14 Arias, Peterson, and Reynosa; 15 2. Defendants W. Costello and DOES 1 through 10 be DISMISSED; and 16 3. Any other claims asserted in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be DISMISSED. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 19 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 20 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 21 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without 22 leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 23 Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the 24 exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 25 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be 26 disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 27 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time 1 | may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 2 | Cir. 2014). 3 | ITIS SOORDERED. * | Dated: _ April 2, 2026 | hrnnrD bo 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28