Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01020/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01020-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMIE LEE BAKER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. ALVA, et al., 

 Defendant(s).

Case No. 1:14-cv-01020-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (1) FOR 

SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE CLAIM IN 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS ALVA, 

MENDOZA, FRANCO AND O’DANIELS, 

(2) DISMISSING DEFENDANTS CHAN 

AND JOHNSON, and (3) DENYING 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF Nos. 10 & 11)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SERVICE 

DOCUMENTS

(ECF No. 12)

Plaintiff Tommie Lee Baker is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed June 30, 2014 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 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On September 17, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 

Recommendations (ECF No. 11) that (1) Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and 

extension of time should be denied, (2) Plaintiff should proceed on the First Amended 

Case 1:14-cv-01020-AWI-MJS Document 13 Filed 10/29/14 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

Complaint failure to protect claim for damages against Defendants Alva, Mendoza, 

Franco, and O’Daniels, with service to be initiated on these Defendants, and (3) all 

other claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint and all other named Defendants 

should be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff did not object to the Findings and 

Recommendations and the time for doing so has expired. (ECF No. 11, at 8:3-7.) 

On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to obtain the service documents 

provided for in the Findings and Recommendations. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on September 

17, 2014 (ECF No. 11), in full, 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and extension of time (ECF No. 10) is 

DENIED,

3. Plaintiff is to proceed on the First Amended Complaint failure to protect 

claim for damages against Defendants Alva, Mendoza, Franco and 

O’Daniels,

4. All other claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint and all other 

named Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice,

5. Service is to be initiated on the following Defendants:

ALVA - SATF Correctional Officer,

MENDOZA – SATF Correctional Officer,

Case 1:14-cv-01020-AWI-MJS Document 13 Filed 10/29/14 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

FRANCO – SATF Correctional Officer,

O’DANIELS – SATF Correctional Officer,

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff four (4) USM-285 forms, 

four (4) summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an 

instruction sheet and a copy of the First Amended Complaint filed 

September 2, 2014,

7. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff is to complete 

and return to the Court the notice of submission of documents along with 

the following documents:

a. Completed summons,

b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed above,

c. Five (5) copies of the endorsed First Amended Complaint filed 

September 2, 2014, 

8. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court is to direct the 

United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs, and 

9. Plaintiff’s September 29, 2014 motion to obtain the above service 

documents (ECF No. 12) is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01020-AWI-MJS Document 13 Filed 10/29/14 Page 3 of 3