Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01340/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01340-10/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

CHRISTOPHER S. RIDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. 1:07-cv-01340 LJO YNP SMS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 4, 2010, the court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s

first amended complaint states cognizable claims against Defendants Huckabee, Deathridge and

Rangel for violation of the First Amendment, but does not state any claims against the supervisory

Defendants. The court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff was

specifically advised that if he failed to do so, this action would proceed on the first amended

complaint, and the court would recommend dismissal of the supervisory defendants. Plaintiff has

not filed a second amended complaint. Therefore this Findings and Recommendation now issues. 

See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of th

deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed June 12, 2008,

against Defendants Huckabee, Deathridge and Rangel for violation of the First

1

Case 1:07-cv-01340-LJO -MJS Document 30 Filed 03/24/10 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

Amendment;

2. Defendants Yates, Grannis, Shannon and Voss be DISMISSED based on Plaintiff’s

failure to state any claims against them.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

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: March 24, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01340-LJO -MJS Document 30 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2