Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00026/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00026-17/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS B. CASTANEDA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

D. FOSTON, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

(ECF Nos. 57, 58)

Plaintiff Jesus B. Castaneda (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis 

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

On June 13, 2014, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 

and found that it stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference against 

Defendants Reeves, Brown, Trimble, Martinez, and Nelson, and a cognizable First Amendment 

retaliation claim against Defendants Quezada, Lopez, Nelson, Martinez, Mendez, Webster and 

Stone. However, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against 

Defendants Foreman, Nesbit, Duenas, and Guillen and that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable 

Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. The Findings and Recommendations were served on 

Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections must be filed within thirty days after service. 

Following an extension of time, Plaintiff filed objections on July 23, 2014. 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s objections, but does not find any basis to reject the 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff’s efforts to assert additional 

Case 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM Document 78 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 2
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

allegations not included in his prior complaints and to add regulations and arguments to state a 

claim are not sufficient. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, 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, issued on June 13, 2014, are adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on May 

19, 2014, against Defendants Reeves, Brown, Warden Trimble, Martinez and 

Nelson for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and 

Defendants Quezada, Lopez, Nelson, Martinez, Mendez, Webster and Stone for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

3. Defendants Foreman, Nesbit, Duenas and Guillen are DISMISSED from this 

action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim against them;

4. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim is DISMISSED; and

5. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings 

consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM Document 78 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 2