Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01770/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01770-0/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

TROY SYKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

GALINDO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01770-EPG (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

(ECF NO. 1)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, 

DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

AND

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Troy Sykes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing 

this action on December 27, 2023. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleged that correctional officers and 

other staff at Avenal State Prison (ASP) retaliated against him for filing 602 grievances. (See 

generally ECF No. 1).

The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint on March 28, 2024. (ECF No. 8). The Court 

found that only Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Sergeant Galindo, 

correctional officer Martin, correctional officer Oscar Hernandez, and “supervisor free cook” 

Hernandez should proceed past screening. (Id. at 2, 7–8). The Court also concluded that 

Case 1:23-cv-01770-KES-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/10/24 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

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a retaliation claim against Sergeant Vasquez or Sergeant 

Gasca. (Id. at 8.) Accordingly, the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to either: 

a. File a First Amended Complaint, which the Court will screen in 

due course;

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended 

complaint and is instead willing to proceed against Defendants 

Sergeant Galindo, correctional officer Martin, correctional officer 

Oscar Hernandez, and “supervisor free cook” Hernandez on a claim 

for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; or

c. Notify the Court in writing that he wishes to stand on his

complaint, in which case the Court will issue findings and 

recommendations to a district judge consistent with this order.

(Id. at 9–10). On April 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed notice that he wants to proceed only against the 

defendants and on the claim that the Court found should proceed past screening; specifically, 

Plaintiff wishes to proceed on the First Amendment retaliation claim against Sergeant Galindo, 

correctional officer Martin, correctional officer Oscar Hernandez, and “supervisor free cook” 

Hernandez only. (ECF No. 9).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 

March 28, 2024 (ECF No. 8), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 

proceed only on the claim and only against the defendants that the Court found should proceed 

past screening (ECF No. 9), it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claim against for First 

Amendment retaliation against a retaliation claim against Sergeant Vasquez and Sergeant Gasca 

be dismissed.

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)(1). Within fourteen 

(14) 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.” 

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 1:23-cv-01770-KES-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/10/24 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

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 

waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991))

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01770-KES-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/10/24 Page 3 of 3