Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05668/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05668-3/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

MANUEL JUAREZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05668-REC-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 31)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc.

25)

Plaintiff Manuel Juarez (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 72-302.

On February 16, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that an objection, if any, to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days.

After obtaining an extension of time, plaintiff filed an objection

on April 28, 2006.

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

and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a de novo review of

Case 1:04-cv-05668-LJO -GSA Document 39 Filed 05/10/06 Page 1 of 4
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

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 February 16,

2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action proceed on plaintiff’s due process claim

against defendants Verdin, Gentry, Haws, Fisher, Schmidt,

and Travers based on the validation of plaintiff as a

gang associate and the assessment of a SHU term against

plaintiff (fifth and ninth causes of action), and on

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant

Rangel based on the endangerment of plaintiff’s personal

safety (thirteenth cause of action);

3. The following claims are DISMISSED from this action for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted:

a. Due process claim stemming from August 7, 1999

disciplinary hearing, without prejudice (first

cause of action);

b. Due process claim against defendants Verdin,

Gentry, Haws, Schmidt, Winett, and Fisher based on

retention in ad-seg, with prejudice (second, third,

and fourth causes of action);

c. Due process claim against defendants Casey and

Avalos based on failure to assist plaintiff, with

prejudice (sixth cause of action);

d. Due process claim against defendants Manuel,

Case 1:04-cv-05668-LJO -GSA Document 39 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Gentry, Todd, and Hansen based on involvement in

addressing plaintiff’s inmate appeal, with

prejudice (seventh cause of action);

e. Conspiracy claim against defendants Todd,

Albritton, Casey, and Avalos, with prejudice

(eighth cause of action);

f. Eighth Amendment claim based on debriefing policy,

with prejudice (tenth cause of action);

g. Eighth Amendment claim based on SHU conditions,

without prejudice but without leave to amend in

this action (eleventh cause of action);

h. Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims against

defendant Marquez, with prejudice (twelfth cause of

action);

i. Denial of access to the courts claim against

defendants Bosley, Case, and Marquez, without

prejudice but without leave to amend in this action

(fourteenth cause of action);

j. Conspiracy claim against defendants Bosley and

Case, with prejudice (fifteenth cause of action);

k. Equal protection claim, with prejudice (seventeenth

and eighteenth causes of action);

l. Separate due process claim under section 1983 based

on violation of state regulations, with prejudice

(twentieth cause of action);

m. Claim based on violation of penal code sections and

Title 15 regulations, with prejudice (twenty-first

cause of action); and,

Case 1:04-cv-05668-LJO -GSA Document 39 Filed 05/10/06 Page 3 of 4
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

n. Failure to train and supervise/supervisory

liability claim, with prejudice (twenty-second

cause of action); and,

4. Defendants Alameida, Chapman, R. Casey, Manuel, Winett,

Todd, Albritton, T. Casey, Avalos, Hansen, McGrath,

Bosley, Case, and Marquez are DISMISSED based on

plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief

may be granted against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05668-LJO -GSA Document 39 Filed 05/10/06 Page 4 of 4