Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02176/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02176-3/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANDRY DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONROE/LIENBERGER DETENTION 

CENTERS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2176 KJM CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff commenced this action on September 19, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On October 28, 

2014, the undersigned determined that service was appropriate for defendants Torres, Garcia, 

Galey, and Gall, and recommended that all other defendants be dismissed. (ECF No. 4.) Torres, 

Garcia, Galey, and Gall have answered the complaint. (ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14 & 15.) 

On April 8, 2015, the district judge dismissed the complaint and granted plaintiff leave to 

file an amended complaint in an attempt to state a cognizable claim against defendants Castenada, 

Yakimtsev, Fristole, and Chan. (ECF No. 11.) On April 27, 2015, plaintiff was granted an 

extension of time until June 30, 2015 to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 19.) That deadline 

has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. This action be dismissed as to defendants Castenada, Yakimtsev, Fristole, and Chan. 

Case 2:14-cv-02176-KJM-CKD Document 20 Filed 07/24/15 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

2

See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and 

2. Plaintiff be permitted to proceed on the original complaint against defendants Torres, 

Garcia, Galey, and Gall. 

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 fourteen 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: July 24, 2015

2 / dani2176.fta_fr(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02176-KJM-CKD Document 20 Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 2