Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01422/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01422-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOSAM KADDOURA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv–01422-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(ECF Nos. 22, 23, 24)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Hosam Kaddoura is a formerstate prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action 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 29, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 23.) On November

16, 2012, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to Grant Leave to Amend and Correct

Deficiencies and Reconsideration of Findings and Recommendations Based on Corrected

Deficiencies” in which he requests reconsideration of the Findings and Recommendations and seeks

leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 24.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as

an Objection to the Findings and Recommendation. 

In his Objection, Plaintiff states that he did not understand Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

18 and 20. However, Plaintiff correctly sets forth what was required to state a claim. The issue with

Plaintiff’s amended complaint was that the facts do not state a claim for relief for a violation of his

1

Case 1:11-cv-01422-LJO-BAM Document 25 Filed 11/21/12 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

due process rights based on the rule violation hearing, and therefore, the claims against Defendants

Bickett, Bergthold, Bogle, Bangi, Gilmore, Allen, Spatola, Bird, and Does are not appropriately

joined in this action. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue the claims against these individuals he needs to

bring the claims in a separate action.

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 29, 2012, is adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s First, Second, Third, and Seventh Causes of Action are dismissed, without

leave to amend, as improperly joined in this action under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 18 and 20;

3. Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim; 

4. Plaintiff’s Tenth Cause of Action is dismissed, without leave to amend, as barred by

the Favorable Termination Rule;

5. Defendants Bickell, Bergthold, Bogle, Bangi, Gilmore, Allen, Spatola, Bird, and

Does are dismissed from this action as improperly joined under Rules 18 and 20; and 

6. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in

the Findings and Recommendations, or 

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

complaint and is willing to proceed only against Defendants Calhoun and

Darbi.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:11-cv-01422-LJO-BAM Document 25 Filed 11/21/12 Page 2 of 2