Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00157/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00157-9/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 May 5, 2008 order, the court should have dismissed defendant Hardy from this

action as well, as the complaint failed to state charging allegations against this individual.

Accordingly, the court herein recommends dismissal of defendant Hardy. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0157 MCE EFB P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On May 5, 2008, the court dismissed plaintiff’s conspiracy claim against defendant

Felker and all claims against defendants Colon, Naargard, Clark, Battey, Wong, Kernan, and

Terhune pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, with leave to amend.1

 The court informed plaintiff he

could proceed against defendants Rivas, Abney, Mendonca, Aguilera, Glenn, Jones, Rush,

McGuire, Davis, Felker, Blankenship, Waybright, Luccarelli, Runnels, Bigford, Wagner,

Jackson, Grannis, Melching, Ehle, Maddock, Avila, DeForest, Shelton, Prater, Goni, Stone,

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 57 Filed 12/03/08 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

2

Cobb, Spidle, and Minnick by submitting materials for service within 20 days, but the court

would construe his election so to proceed as consent to dismissal of his conspiracy claim against

defendant Felker and all claims against defendants Colon, Naargard, Clark, Battey, Wong,

Kernan, and Terhune without leave to amend. 

On May 16, 2008, plaintiff submitted materials for service of defendants Rivas, Abney,

Mendonca, Aguilera, Glenn, Jones, Rush, McGuire, Davis, Felker, Blankenship, Waybright,

Luccarelli, Runnels, Bigford, Wagner, Jackson, Grannis, Melching, Ehle, Maddock, Avila,

DeForest, Shelton, Prater, Goni, Stone, Cobb, Spidle, and Minnick. 

The court finds plaintiff has consented to dismissal of the conspiracy claim against

defendant Felker and all claims against defendants Colon, Naargard, Clark, Battey, Wong,

Kernan, and Terhune without leave to amend. The court also finds that defendant Hardy should

be dismissed from this action because plaintiff failed to state any charging allegations against

this individual.

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the conspiracy claim against defendant

Felker and all claims against defendants Colon, Naargard, Clark, Battey, Wong, Kernan,

Terhune and Hardy be dismissed without prejudice. 

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

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: December 3, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 57 Filed 12/03/08 Page 2 of 2