Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02487/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02487-3/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

JASON DAVID YONAI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2487 MCE GGH P

vs.

JACK HARRIS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has separately issued an order addressing the second amended

complaint filed February 12, 2007. Named as defendants are Correctional Officers Carver and

Bowers.

The court found that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Carver and Bowers

concerning the kicking of plaintiff stated a colorable claim. The court found that the claims

against defendants alleging retaliation and a violation of the Eighth Amendment regarding the

puddle of water in front of plaintiff’s cell did not state colorable claims. For the reasons stated in

that order, the court now recommends dismissal of the “water” claims.

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02487-MCE -GGH Document 15 Filed 03/07/07 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the retaliation and Eighth

Amendment claims against defendants Carver and Bowers contained in the second amended

complaint regarding the puddle of water in front of plaintiff’s cell be dismissed. 

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, 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).

DATED: 3/7/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

yon2487.56

Case 2:06-cv-02487-MCE -GGH Document 15 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 2