Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01014/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01014-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK LEE BILLUPS,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 1014 AWI WMW PC

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

SGT. LOMELI, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

By order filed January 9, 2008, the court issued an order dismissing the operative

complaint for failure to state a claim and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within

thirty days. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on January 30, 2008. By separate order,

the court found that the first amended complaint states a claim as to Defendant Lomeli.

 As to Defendant Chavez, Plaintiff sets forth a claim of retaliation. Specifically, Plaintiff

alleges that Defendant Chavez’s name “has been signed on previous CDC 602 appeals and

documents with dealt with plaintiff being harassed by staff and safety concerns.” Plaintiff allege

that his typewrite was confiscated.

“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five

Case 1:06-cv-01014-LJO Document 12 Filed 06/26/08 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

2

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 (9th Cir. 2005). See also Sorrano’s

Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9 Cir. 1989)(explaining that a plaintiff must plead th

facts which suggest “that the protected conduct was a ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor in the

defendant’s decision”) (citation ommitted).

Plaintiff does not allege any facts indicating that any conduct of Defendant Chavez’s

actually chilled his first amendment rights. That Defendant Chavez’s name is on inmate

grievances filed by Plaintiff does not subject Chavez to liability. Further, Plaintiff does not

allege that Chavez confiscated Plaintiff’s typewriter, nor does Plaintiff allege any facts indicating

that such a deprivation actually chilled his first amendment rights.

In the January 9, 2008, order the court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his

complaint, and dismissed the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim

upon which relief could be granted. Because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that state a claim

for retaliation, Defendant Chavez should be dismissed. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446,

1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend th

prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Chavez be

dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

Case 1:06-cv-01014-LJO Document 12 Filed 06/26/08 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

3

objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the th

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: June 25, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01014-LJO Document 12 Filed 06/26/08 Page 3 of 3