Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01680/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01680-15/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

NATHAN HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-1680 DAD AC 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 November 4, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice 

to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 

within fourteen days. ECF No. 54. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations. ECF No. 69. His objections, however, are untimely.1 Despite this 

1

 After being granted two extensions of time (see ECF Nos. 56, 61) to file objections 

to the court’s findings and recommendations issued November 4, 2022, plaintiff was

informed on January 10, 2023, that his objections were to be filed no later than 

February 6, 2023, and that no additional extensions of time would be granted (see

ECF No. 62 at 2). Despite this fact, plaintiff filed a third request for an extension of 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 72 Filed 04/18/23 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

fact, given that some delays appear to have been related to changes in plaintiff’s 

address, the court considers plaintiff’s objections.

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued November 4, 2022 (ECF No. 54), 

are ADOPTED in full;

2. This action shall PROCEED on the following claims against the following 

defendants only:

a. Claim Two (deliberate indifference) against defendants Navarro, Medina, 

Ceballos, and the Doe defendant captain who gave the initial order to cuff plaintiff in 

his cell in August 2019, and

b. Claim Four (excessive force) against defendants Vera, Barra, Mancilla, 

Gomez, Reyes, the Doe defendant tower guard who opened plaintiff’s cell door in 

November 2019, and the Doe correctional officers who allegedly participated in the 

beating;

3. The following claims and defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1):

a. Claims One and Three in their entirety;

b. Claim Two against defendant Captain Gallagher;

c. Claim Four against defendants Randolph and Navarro, and

d. All named defendants not specified in paragraph 1, above, and

//

time, which was denied (see ECF Nos. 63, 64) and a fourth request for an extension of 

time, which was also denied (see ECF Nos. 65, 66). Thereafter, on February 7, 2023, 

plaintiff signed his objections (ECF No. 69 at 2, 39), and on February 16, 2023, they 

were docketed (ECF No. 69).

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 72 Filed 04/18/23 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

4. Plaintiff’s motion for a restraining order (ECF No. 52 at 2) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2023 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 72 Filed 04/18/23 Page 3 of 3