Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00611/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00611-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELVIN JOHN CABRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS M. MADDOCK, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00611-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

(1) FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE 

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

GENTRY, SANCHEZ, SIGSTEN, 

BUECHNER, JAKABUSKY, AND 

KINGSTON IN FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, AND 

(2) TO DISMISS ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 16)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff 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 of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On June 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations for 

service of Plaintiff’s cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claims and dismissal of all other 

claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 22.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 

Case 1:10-cv-00611-LJO-MJS Document 23 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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.

Plaintiff concedes that several of his alleged claims must be dismissed. However, 

he argues that he should be allowed to proceed on the following additional claims, found 

not to be cognizable the Magistrate Judge: a Due Process claim regarding whether he 

had a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding his gang validation, an Equal 

Protection claim, a Retaliation claim, a claim for Cruel and Unusual Punishment, a 

Conspiracy claim, a claim for supervisory liability, and a claim that regulations applicable 

to the gang validation process are vague and overbroad. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s 

complaint and the objections, the undersigned concludes that the objections do not raise 

an issue of fact or law under the findings and recommendations.

Plaintiff also requests referral for alternative dispute resolution. However, this 

request is premature because no Defendants have been served in this action. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request will be denied without prejudice.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations, filed June 1, 2015 

(ECF No. 16), in full;

2. Plaintiff’s request for referral for alternative dispute resolution is denied 

without prejudice;

3. Plaintiff shall proceed on his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim for 

money damages against Defendants Gentry, Sanchez, Sigsten, Buechner, 

Jakabusky, and Kingston, in their individual capacities; 

4. All other claims asserted in the first amended complaint and all other 

named Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice,

5. Service shall be initiated on the following Defendants:

LT. J. GENTRY – CCI Gang Investigator,

Case 1:10-cv-00611-LJO-MJS Document 23 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

SGT. E. SANCHEZ – CCI Gang Investigator,

SIGSTEN – CCI Gang Investigator,

M. BUECHNER – Special Service Agent, OCS,

D. JAKABUSKY – Special Service Agent, OCS, and

B. KINGSTON – Special Service Agent, OCS.

6. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff six (6) USM-285 forms, six (6)

summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet 

and a copy of the first amended complaint filed November 15, 2012;

7. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete 

and return to the Court the Notice of Submission of Documents along with 

the following documents:

a. Completed summons,

b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed above,

c. Seven (7) copies of the endorsed first amended complaint filed 

November 15, 2012;

8. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendants and need not request 

waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the 

Court shall direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named 

Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs; and

9. The failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00611-LJO-MJS Document 23 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 3