Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05397/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05397-4/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

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAUMLER, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5397 OWW SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND CERTAIN

DEFENDANTS FROM ACTION (Doc. 27, 49) 

Christopher Lee Jenkins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 16, 2002. On August 12, 2002, Plaintiff filed an

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff moved to submit Second Amended Complaint and lodged the

complaint on January 9, 2003. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and the Second Amended

Complaint was filed on April 2, 2003. Also on April 2, 2003, the Court dismissed the Second

Amended Complaint with leave to amend. A Third Amended Complaint was filed by Plaintiff

on June 27, 2003. Plaintiff moved to amend the Third Amended Complaint on September 2,

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 51 Filed 08/02/06 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

2003. The request was granted on November 7, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended

Complaint. 

On March 9, 2005, the Court dismissed the Fourth Amended Complaint with leave to

amend and informed Plaintiff that he could file a Fifth Amended Complaint curing the defects

outlined by the Court, or inform the Court that he wished to proceed on the claims found

cognizable and dismiss those not cognizable. 

On June 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed a pleading

titled “Motion to Dismiss on June 20, 2005, that informed the Court that he did not wish to file a

Sixth Amended Complaint. 

On July 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion informing the Court that he wished to proceed

on the retaliation claim against Defendant Baumler which the Court found cognizable in the

Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also stated that he wished to dismiss all claims against all

other Defendants and also wished the Court to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint altogether. 

By separate Order, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request and dismissed the Fifth Amended

Complaint. Accordingly, in light of Plaintiff’s request to dismiss all claims and Defendants from

the action except the retaliation claim against Defendant Baumler, the Court HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that all claims against Defendants Zinani, Elliot, Fields, Cuevas, Harthung, and

Acala and these Defendants be DISMISSED from the action at Plaintiff’s request. The Court

further RECOMMENDS that the action proceed only on the retaliation claim against Defendant

D. Baumler as alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 27.) 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of 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.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 51 Filed 08/02/06 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

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 51 Filed 08/02/06 Page 3 of 3