Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00991/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00991-1/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

REGINALD M. BRYANT, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0991 DFL DAD P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 14, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has also filed a proposed second

amended complaint.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. In his proposed second amended

complaint, plaintiff names a new defendant and attacks the family visiting program indirectly. 

Case 2:04-cv-00991-DFL-DAD Document 19 Filed 02/08/06 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

Plaintiff argues that his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection are

being violated by conflicting provisions of state law that have rendered his ability to participate

in family visiting “unconstitutionally untenable.” On the basis of the alleged conflicts in state

law, plaintiff seeks to prohibit prison officials from applying the family visiting program to him

as interpreted by the defendant. Plaintiff’s new articulation of his family visiting claim does not

appear to be the claim plaintiff exhausted in his inmate appeal. In any event, plaintiff’s

allegations concerning state law do not cure the fundamental defects of his federal due process

and equal protection claims. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 14, 2005, are adopted in

full;

2. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state

law claims; and

3. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a federal claim

upon which relief may be granted.

DATED: 2/8/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00991-DFL-DAD Document 19 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2