Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02898/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02898-6/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EZEQUIEL ROMO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-2898 GEB DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 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 August 29, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations that were

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen 

days. The magistrate judge amended his findings and recommendations in an order dated 

September 16, 2014. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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

court 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.

/////

Case 2:11-cv-02898-GEB-DB Document 57 Filed 09/30/14 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 29, 2014, are adopted as amended by 

the magistrate judge’s order of September 16, 2014.

2. The motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 47) is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:

a. The motion to dismiss the claims for inadequate medical care, failure to train 

and supervise, and violation of the Equal Protection clause is granted as to all defendants.

b. The motion to dismiss the claim for retaliatory placement on contraband 

surveillance watch is granted as to all defendants except Virga and Stewart. As to 

defendants Virga and Stewart, the motion to dismiss that claim is denied.

c. The motion to dismiss the claim for retaliatory withholding of legal materials

is granted as to all defendants except for defendants Stewart, Buchanan, Engellener, 

Mendoza, E. Baker, Montez and Hood. As to defendants Stewart, Buchanan, Engellener, 

Mendoza, E. Baker, Montez and Hood, the motion to dismiss that claim is denied.

d. The motion to dismiss the claim for deprivation of federal due process is 

granted as to all defendants except defendants Virga and Stewart. As to defendants Virga 

and Stewart, the motion to dismiss that claim is denied.

e. The motion to dismiss all claims alleged under state law is granted as to all 

defendants except for the claim for violation of due process under the California 

Constitution. As to that claim, all defendants are dismissed except for defendants Virga 

and Stewart, as to whom the motion to dismiss the state law claim for deprivation of due 

process is denied.

f. The motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim for unconstitutional 

conditions of confinement is granted as to defendants J. Baker, Williams, Holstrom and 

Walker. As to all other defendants, the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim 

for unconstitutional conditions of confinement is denied.

g. The motion to dismiss all claims based on the processing or review of 

plaintiff’s underlying administrative inmate appeals is granted as to all defendants. 

////

Case 2:11-cv-02898-GEB-DB Document 57 Filed 09/30/14 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

h. Defendants J. Baker, Williams, Holstrom and Walker are dismissed from this 

action. 

Dated: September 30, 2014

hm

romo2898.805

Case 2:11-cv-02898-GEB-DB Document 57 Filed 09/30/14 Page 3 of 3