Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05688/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05688-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO CORTEZ BUCKLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-05688-OWW-LJO P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FROM

ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM

(Doc. 28)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

I. Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Second Amended Complaint

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

December 29, 2003, in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. On May 11,

2004, the action was transferred to the Fresno Division. On October 26, 2004, the court dismissed

plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a). (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2005. (Doc. 19.) 

On April 5, 2006, the court issued an order finding that plaintiff’s amended complaint stated

cognizable claims for relief against defendants Winett, Meadors, and Barker for retaliation (incident

1), defendants Reed, Mack, and Traynham for violation of the Eighth Amendment (incident 2), and

defendants Barker and Chappel for violation of the Equal Protection Clause (incident 4), but did not

state any other claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. (Doc. 24.) The court

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 34 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 12
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

ordered plaintiff to either file a second amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to

proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable by the court. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a second

amended complaint on May 12, 2006. (Doc. 28.) The court has screened plaintiff’s second amended

complaint and this Findings and Recommendations issues as a result. 

B. Screening Requirement

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a

complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved

consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately

prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may

appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the

test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.

232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need

suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262

F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a

plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 34 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 12
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 Plaintiff’s claims arise from 3 separate incidents. Therefore, the court shall address the claims as they 1

arise from each of the three incidents.

3

interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not

initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

C. Summary of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

The events at issue in this action allegedly occurred at the California Correctional Institution

(CCI) in Tehachapi, where plaintiff was incarcerated at the time. Plaintiff names Arthur Calderon,

Edward S. Alameida, Jr., Nola Grannis, P. L. Vasquez, T. Vo, M. Ortiz, T. W. Meadors, D. R. Reed,

Bernard Kordan, T. Traynham, R. L. Papac, David L. Winett, Paul F. Woodley, Dennis Barker, M.

Howard, M. Johnson, Mack, Chappel, and John Doe x-ray tech as defendants. Plaintiff is seeking

monetary damages and declaratory relief. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and

State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d

1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has

no power to hear the matter in question. Id. When an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief

concerning the prison where he is incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he is

no longer subjected to those conditions. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001); Dilley

v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991).

Because the events at issue in this action occurred in 2001 through 2003 at CCI and plaintiff

is no longer incarcerated there, the court shall recommend that plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief

be dismissed and this action proceed as one for damages only.

D. Plaintiff’s Claims1

1. Incident 1

Plaintiff alleges that he is a black Orthodox Jew, and was the only Jewish prisoner housed

in Unit 4 at CCI, which holds approximately one-thousand prisoners. Plaintiff alleges that he filed

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 34 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 12
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

4

a citizen’s complaint against David S. Sutherland, a correctional officer, on February 27, 2002, and

then filed complaints with the Kings County Grand Jury, the Inspector General’s Office, the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, and the federal court. Plaintiff alleges that thereafter, defendants Howard,

Johnson, Barker, Chappel, Papac, Meadors, and Winett harassed plaintiff daily with threats and

excessive body searches, and yelled at plaintiff because he would not shave his beard and stop

wearing his kippah. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Winett, Meadors, Barker, and Woodley

confiscated his kosher food package on December 6, 2002, in retaliation for the citizen’s complaint

he filed, which deprived him of his right to practice his religion and celebrate Hanukkah. Plaintiff

alleges that defendants discriminated against him because he is Jewish, and retaliated against him

for filing the complaint against Sutherland. Plaintiff alleges that on February 5, 2003, defendant

Calderon conspired with defendants Winett, Meadors, Barker, and Woodley to cover up the action

taken on December 6, 2002, and that on March 25, 2003, defendants Alameida and Grannis

conspired to cover up the action taken on December 6, 2002.

a. Free Exercise Claim

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution .

. . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,

or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell

v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The

Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right,

within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s

affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the

deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make

no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U.S. Const.,

amend. I. The United States Supreme Court has held that prisoners retain their First Amendment

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 34 Filed 12/04/06 Page 4 of 12
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

5

rights, including the right to free exercise of religion. O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342,

348 (1987). The Court has also recognized that limitations on a prisoner’s free exercise rights arise

from both the fact of incarceration and from valid penological objectives. Id.; McElyea v. Babbit,

833 F. 2d 196, 197 (9th Cir. 1987). “In order to establish a free exercise violation, [plaintiff] must

show the defendants burdened the practice of his religion by preventing him from engaging in

conduct mandated by his faith.” Freeman v. Arpaio,125 F.3d 732, 736 (9th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that the confiscation of his package deprived him of his right

to practice his religion and celebrate Hanukkah is insufficient to support a claim plaintiff’s

constitutional rights were violated. Not every interference with or incident relating to religious

practices rises to the level of a constitutional violation, and plaintiff has not alleged facts which

would support a claim that the deprivation prevented him from engaging in conduct mandated by

his faith. Plaintiff has twice been given leave to amend his complaint and was specifically notified

of this deficiency in the court’s prior order of April 5, 2006. (Docs. 9, 24.) Accordingly, the court

recommends that this claim be dismissed, with prejudice.

b. Equal Protection Claim

“The Equal Protection Clause . . . is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated

should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (citing

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982)). “‘To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation

of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the

defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon

membership in a protected class.’” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001)

(quoting Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)). “Intentional discrimination

means that a defendant acted at least in part because of a plaintiff’s protected status.” Serrano v.

Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396,

1404 (9th Cir. 1994)) (emphasis in original). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions,

that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren,

152 F.3d at 1194. 

///

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 34 Filed 12/04/06 Page 5 of 12
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

6

Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim that any of the defendants named

in this subsection intentionally discriminated against him based on his race or religion. Plaintiff has

twice been given leave to amend his complaint and was specifically notified of this deficiency in the

court’s prior order of April 5, 2006. (Docs. 9, 24.) Accordingly, the court recommends that this

claim be dismissed, with prejudice.

 c. Retaliation Claim

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to petition

the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.

1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. Rowland, 65

F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action

against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled

the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance

a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005).

Yelling and threats do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Oltarzewski v.

Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987); Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987).

However, in light of federal notice pleading standards, the court finds plaintiff’s allegation that

defendants Howard, Johnson, Barker, Chappel, Papac, Meadors, and Winett subjected him to

excessive body searches after he filed complaints is sufficient to state a claim for retaliation. Further,

plaintiff’s allegation that defendants Winett, Meadors, Barker, and Woodley confiscated his kosher

food package in retaliation for the citizen’s complaint plaintiff filed against Officer Sutherland is

sufficient to state a claim for retaliation. 

d. Conspiracy Claim

Plaintiff’s allegation that defendants Calderon, Winett, Meadors, Barker, Woodley,

Alameida, and Grannis conspired to cover up the confiscation of his package does not give rise to

a claim for relief under section 1983. Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir.

1992); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff

has twice been notified that conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim under section

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 34 Filed 12/04/06 Page 6 of 12
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

7

1983 and that he must allege facts linking defendants’ actions or omissions to a violation of his

rights. (Docs. 9, 24.) Plaintiff has not done so and the court recommends that this claim be

dismissed, with prejudice. 

2. Incident 2

Plaintiff alleges that on December 11, 2002, he and defendant Calderon got into an argument

concerning the confiscation of his kosher food package. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Calderon

tried to justify the confiscation and slurred him by saying, “You people are always complaining.”

(2nd Amend. Comp., 16:11-12.) Plaintiff alleges that in retaliation for arguing with him, defendant

Calderon had him placed in the “eight ball program,” which tortures prisoners for profit. (Id., 16:15-

17.)

Plaintiff alleges he was taken to the medical clinic where defendants Winett, Meadors, Papac,

Howard, and Johnson conspired with defendant Calderon to retaliate against and torture plaintiff by

forcing him to have an x-ray taken, which subjected him to unnecessary radiation. Plaintiff alleges

defendants Vo, Kordan, and Doe conspired with defendants Calderon, Winett, Meadors, Papac,

Howard, and Johnson to retaliate and torture plaintiff by falsifying the x-ray report to state that

plaintiff had rectal contraband. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ actions were retaliatory, discriminatory,

and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. 

Plaintiff alleges he was placed in punitive segregation on contraband watch, known as the

eight ball program. Plaintiff allege defendant Reed made him remove his pants, shirt, and shoes, and

placed plaintiff in full mechanical restraints, a waistchain, handcuffs, and leg irons clad only in a tshirt, boxer shorts, and shower shoes. Plaintiff alleges defendant Reed placed him in a small holding

cage the size of a telephone booth, and he was freezing cold. Plaintiff alleges defendants Mack,

Reed, and Traynham denied him clothing or a blanket. Plaintiff alleges that he told defendant Mack

he would commit suicide to stop the pain from the cold. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Ortiz, a

medical technical assistant, was summoned but denied plaintiff medical treatment. Plaintiff alleges

defendant Kim, a doctor, was called but he also denied plaintiff medical treatment, and defendant

Ortiz told him he was not going to “get shit” because he disrespected the warden. (Id., 18:5.)

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Ortiz conspired with defendants Reed, Traynham, and Mack to

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 34 Filed 12/04/06 Page 7 of 12
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

8

retaliate and torture plaintiff by denying him medical care and falsifying a medical report by stating

he gave plaintiff medical care. 

Plaintiff alleges he was subsequently placed in a freezing strip cell with fecal matter on the

floor and bunks, no running water, no blanket, and no cleaning supplies for three days. Plaintiff

alleges he went on a hunger strike and on the third day was given another x-ray, which cleared him

of having rectal contraband. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Vazquez, Winett, and Grannis

conspired to cover up the incident. 

a. Retaliation and Equal Protection Claims

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that support a claim that he was retaliated against for

exercising any rights protected under the First Amendment, and has not alleged any facts that support

a claim that he was intentionally discriminated against based on his religion. Accordingly, plaintiff

fails to state a claim for retaliation orfor denial of equal protection. Plaintiff was previously notified

of what is necessary to state claims for retaliation and denial of equal protection. (Docs. 9, 24.)

Therefore, the court recommends dismissal of these claims, with prejudice.

b. Cruel and Unusual Punishment

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain . . . .” Rhodes v. Chapman,

452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials

must provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.

Id.; Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237,

1246 (9th Cir. 1982). Where a prisoner alleges injuries stemming from unsafe conditions of

confinement, prison officials may be held liable only if they acted with “deliberate indifference to

a substantial risk of serious harm.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 

The deliberate indifference standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the

alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious . . . .” Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official

must “know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health orsafety . . . .” Farmer, 511 U.S.

at 837. Thus, a prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying humane

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 34 Filed 12/04/06 Page 8 of 12
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

9

conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of harm and

disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. Id. at 837-45. 

“What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual

Punishment Clause depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8

(1992). “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is . . . contextual and responsive

to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. at 8 (quotations and citations omitted). “[E]xtreme

deprivations are required to make out a[n] [Eighth Amendment] conditions-of-confinement claim.”

Id. at 9 (citation omitted). With respect to this type of claim, “[b]ecause routine discomfort is part

of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society, only those deprivations

denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis

of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). 

The allegations that plaintiff was forced to take two body x-rays and that defendants Vo,

Kordan, and Doe falsified medical reports do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.

Despite plaintiff’s assertion to the contrary, the taking of an x-ray does not constitute torture.

Plaintiff’s allegation that he was held in a freezing cold, filthy cell for three days would be sufficient

to support an Eighth Amendment claim. However, plaintiff has not alleged any facts linking his

subjection to these conditions to any of the defendants. As the court informed plaintiff in its

previous screening order, only those defendants involved in confining plaintiff in the cell for three

days and/or with knowledge of the conditions plaintiff was being held in for three days are proper

defendants under this claim. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff was previously given leave to amend but failed to

cure the deficiencies. (Id.; see also Doc. 9.) Accordingly, the court recommends plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claims be dismissed, with prejudice.

c. Conspiracy Claim

Plaintiff’s allegation that defendants conspired to cover up the incident does not state a claim.

Plaintiff has neither alleged facts supporting the existence of a conspiracy nor alleged facts sufficient

to support a claim that any underlying constitutional rights were violated as a result of a conspiracy.

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 34 Filed 12/04/06 Page 9 of 12
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

10

3. Incident 3

Plaintiff alleges that on March 7, 2003, when he was at the property office, defendant Barker

told plaintiff he did not “give a shit about Jews.” (2nd Amend. Comp., 19:14-15.) Plaintiff alleges

that defendant Chappel agreed with Barker and told plaintiff that there is payback for inmates who

disrespect the warden. Plaintiff alleges that on March 12, 2003, defendants Barker and Chappel

retaliated and discriminated against him, and denied him his right to practice his religion by

confiscating his two menorahs, candles, and radio. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Barker assured

him that he and defendant Chappel had packed all of plaintiff’s property, and called plaintiff a “smart

ass Jew boy” as Barker was leaving the office. (Id., 20:5.) Plaintiff was subsequently transferred

to California State Prison-Corcoran, where he discovered that his menorahs, candles, and radio were

missing. 

a. Free Exercise, Retaliation, and Equal Protection Claims

Plaintiff’s property was packed and plaintiff was transported to another prison, whereupon

he discovered the missing religious items. These allegations do not support a free exercise claim

against defendants Barker and Chappel. Further, plaintiff has not alleged any facts that support a

claim that he was retaliated against for exercising any rights protected under the First Amendment.

However, plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to support a claim that defendants Barker and Chappel

intentionally discriminated against him based on his religion. 

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s second amended complaint contains cognizable claims for

relief against defendants Howard, Johnson, Barker, Chappel, Papac, Meadors, and Winett for

retaliation arising out of excessive body searches (incident 1), against defendants Winett, Meadors,

Barker, and Woodley for retaliation arising out of the confiscation of plaintiff’s kosher package

(incident 1), and against defendants Barker and Chappel for violation of the Equal Protection Clause

(incident 3). However, the court finds that plaintiff’s second amended complaint does not contain

any other claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Plaintiff was provided with

the applicable legal standards, notified of the need to allege facts linking the acts or omissions

complained of to named defendants, and given the opportunity to amend on two prior occasions, but

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 34 Filed 12/04/06 Page 10 of 12
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 Plaintiff’s inability or unwillingness to comply with the court’s orders is evidenced by his failure to 2

separately state his claims, something he was specifically directed to do. (Docs. 9, 24.) 

11

plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies. (Docs. 9, 24.) Accordingly, the court recommends that 2

further leave to amend not be granted, that this action proceed forward on plaintiff’s cognizable

claims, and that the remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed May 12, 2006,

on plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendants Howard, Johnson, Barker, Chappel,

Papac, Meadors, and Winett arising out of excessive body searches (Incident 1),

retaliation claim against defendants Winett, Meadors, Barker, and Woodley arising

out of the confiscation of his kosher food package (Incident 1), and equal protection

claim against defendants Barker and Chappel arising out of the disappearance of his

religious property (Incident 3);

2. Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief be dismissed from this action for mootness, and

this action proceed as one for damages only;

3. Plaintiff’s free exercise claim against defendants Winett, Meadors, Barker, and

Woodley alleged in Incident 1 be dismissed from this action, with prejudice, for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;

4. Plaintiff’s equal protection claim against defendants alleged in Incident 1 be

dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted;

5. Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim against defendants Calderon, Winett, Meadors, Barker,

Woodley, Alameida, and Grannis alleged in Incident 1 be dismissed from this action,

with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;

6. Plaintiff’s retaliation, equal protection, Eighth Amendment, and conspiracy claims

alleged in Incident 2 be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state any claims upon

which relief may be granted; 

///

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 34 Filed 12/04/06 Page 11 of 12
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

12

7. Plaintiff’s free exercise and retaliation claims alleged in Incident 3 be dismissed, with

prejudice, for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; and

8. Defendants Calderon, Alameida, Grannis, Vasquez, Vo, Ortiz, Reed, Kordan,

Traynham, Mack, and Doe x-ray tech be dismissed from this action based on

plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 34 Filed 12/04/06 Page 12 of 12