Cueva

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL DAVID CARR, No. 2:24-cv-1680 DJC AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DANIEL E. CUEVA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. 20 I. Background 21 On October 2, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a screening order in which 22 she found the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) adequately stated an Eighth 23 Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s nutritional needs against 24 defendants Patterson, Dail, Rodriguez, and Sandoval; ADA and RA claims against 25 defendant CMF and defendant Patterson in her official capacity; and a First 26 Amendment retaliation claim and Fourth Amendment unlawful search claim against 27 defendant Silva. ECF No. 44 at 5-6. The Magistrate Judge further found that Plaintiff’s 28 …