1 2 3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 ROBERT SAENZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-01440-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 THAT THIS CASE PROCEED ONLY ON v. PLAINTIFF’S FOURTEENTH 12 AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAIMS

R. ROQUE, et al., AGAINST DEFENDANT R. ROQUE AND

13 DEFENDANT GONZALEZ Defendants. 14 (ECF Nos. 1, 9, 10) 15

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 30

16 DAYS

17 Plaintiff Robert Saenz proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). The complaint alleges that correctional officer 19 Gonzalez planted a syringe on Plaintiff then filed a false Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) 20 against him. The complaint also alleges that Lieutenant Roque denied him due process during 21 the RVR hearing. 22 On May 15, 2025, the Court screened the complaint, concluding that Plaintiff 23 sufficiently stated a claim for violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth 24 Amendment against Defendants Roque and Gonzalez. (ECF No. 9). The Court explained why 25 the complaint otherwise failed to state any claims and gave Plaintiff thirty days to either file (1) 26 a notice to go forward on his cognizable claims, (2) an amended complaint; or (3) a notice to 27 stand on his complaint and have it reviewed by a district judge. (Id.). 28 1 On May 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he wants to proceed only on the 2 || Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants Roque and Gonzalez that the 3 |} Court found cognizable. (ECF No. 10). 4 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 5 || May 15, 2025 (ECF No. 9), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 6 || proceed on the Fourteenth Amendment due process claims that the Court found should proceed 7 || past screening (ECF No. 10), IT IS RECOMMENDED that all claims other than Plaintiffs 8 || Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants Roque and Gonzalez be 9 || dismissed. 10 Additionally, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to this case. 11 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 12 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 13 || thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 14 || written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 15 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 15 16 || pages, including exhibits. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 17 || time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 18 || (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 0 IT IS SO ORDERED. 71! Dated: _ June 2, 2025 [Je hey — 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28