Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01490/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01490-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUARY L SHUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. BAKER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01490-DAD-DMC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS

(Doc. No. 13)

Plaintiff Guary L Shuford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 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 Rule 302.

On January 27, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 

found that plaintiff had stated a potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:22-cv-01490-DAD-DMC Document 19 Filed 07/12/23 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

Defendant Baker, but that plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable First Amendment claim1

against defendant Baker and failed to state any cognizable claims against defendants Gonzales, 

Saetenurn, and Lebeck.

2

 (Doc. No. 12 at 2, 7–8.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended 

complaint within thirty (30) days after entry of the screening order. (Id. at 7–8.) Plaintiff did not 

file an amended complaint, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

Consequently, on April 5, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

brought against defendant Baker found to be cognizable in the screening order and that all other 

claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 13.) The pending findings and recommendations 

were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 

fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time in 

which to do so has now passed.

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

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

/////

1

 Plaintiff’s allegations with respect to his First Amendment claim are not entirely clear. The 

screening order and pending findings and recommendations characterize plaintiff’s complaint as 

alleging that defendant Baker violated plaintiff’s First Amendment rights “by confiscating items 

sent to him by his wife,” which plaintiff “claims . . . resulted in a violation of his rights to 

freedom of religious expression as he worships his wife and considers items sent to him from her 

as religious gifts.” (Doc. Nos. 13 at 1; 12 at 2.) By contrast, the undersigned interprets plaintiff’s 

allegations regarding this claim as potentially asserting that his First Amendment rights were 

violated because defendant Baker allegedly prevented plaintiff from sending gifts to his wife. 

(See Doc. No. 1 at 3) (alleging that defendant Baker “den[ied] me my canteen by which I am 

enabled to commission religious items for my beloved wife” and that plaintiff “worship[s] [his] 

beloved wife . . . by giving [her] such religious items as gifts”) (emphasis added). Under either 

interpretation of the allegations of the complaint, however, plaintiff has not stated a cognizable 

First Amendment claim.

2

 The screening order and pending findings and recommendations do not mention defendants 

Asaad and Banish, who are listed on an additional page affixed to the end of plaintiff’s complaint. 

(See Doc. No. 1 at 7.) As with defendants Gonzales, Saetenurn, and Lebeck, plaintiff makes no 

specific allegations in his complaint with respect to defendants Asaad and Banish. Therefore, the

undersigned also finds that plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim against defendants Asaad 

and Banish.

Case 2:22-cv-01490-DAD-DMC Document 19 Filed 07/12/23 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

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 5, 2023 (Doc. No. 13) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against 

defendant Baker;

3. All other claims brought by plaintiff in this action are dismissed; 

4. Defendants Gonzales, Saetenurn, Lebeck, Asaad, and Banish are dismissed from 

this action;

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect the termination of 

the following defendants from this action: Gonzales, Saetenurn, Lebeck, Asaad, 

and Banish; and

6. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01490-DAD-DMC Document 19 Filed 07/12/23 Page 3 of 3