Tate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL L. SNOWDEN, Case No.: 1:19-cv-00843-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT FOUND

v.

COGNIZABLE

H. TATE; M. TOSCANO, 14-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge

The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A and found that it states cognizable claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs but fails to state a cognizable due process claim. (Doc. 10.) The Court therefore directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in its order or notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on his retaliation and deliberate indifference claims. (Id.) In response to the Court’s screening order, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court “remove the ‘due process violation claim’ and allow … [him] to proceed … [on his] deliberate indifference and retaliation [claims].” (Doc. 11…