(PC) Puckett v. Lynch

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, No. 2:23-cv-00903 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 JEFF LYNCH, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, proceeds without counsel and seeks 19 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) is before the 21 court for screening. (ECF No. 12.) 22 The SAC states a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Alfaro, Lynch, 23 Rojas, Baughman, Lozano, and Diaz. The SAC states a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due 24 process claim against defendants Alfaro, Lynch, Rojas, Baughman, and Lozano. The due process 25 claim is not cognizable against defendant Diaz. 26 By separate order, the court will order service on the defendants. By these findings and 27 recommendations, the undersigned recommends the claim against defendant…