Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01212/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01212-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNETTE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 36)

Plaintiff Jeremey Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 9, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only 

on: (1) plaintiff’s Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims against defendants Vasquez, 

Keener, Gonzalez, Flores, Arnette, Zamora, and Lopez in their official capacities only; 

(2) plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against defendants Vasquez, 

Keener, and Gonzalez; and (3) plaintiff’s due process claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, 

and Gonzalez. (Doc. No. 36.) The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of all other claims 

and defendants without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 19.) The 

findings and recommendation were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 

Case 1:16-cv-01212-ADA-GSA Document 47 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 20.) On February 12, 2019, after 

seeking and receiving two extensions to file objections to the findings and recommendations 

(Doc. Nos. 38, 40), plaintiff filed a notice of his willingness to proceed with the claims found 

cognizable in the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 42.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 

proper analysis. 

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 9, 2018 (Doc. No. 36) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action now proceeds only on:

a. Plaintiff’s ADA claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, Gonzalez, 

Flores, Arnette, Zamora, and Lopez in their official capacities;

b. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against 

defendants Vasquez, Keener, and Gonzalez; 

c. Plaintiff’s due process claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, and 

Gonzalez;

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and

4. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01212-ADA-GSA Document 47 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 2