Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00026/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00026-16/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

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

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 13, 2014, the 

undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations that this action 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 against 

Defendants Quezada, Lopez, Nelson, Martinez, Mendez, Webster and Stone for retaliation in violation 

of the First Amendment. The Court also recommended that Defendants Foreman, Nesbit, Duenas, and 

Guillen be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim against 

JESUS B. CASTANEDA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. FOSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR COPY OF FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 64.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RESERVE PLAINTIFF WITH A COPY OF THE 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED 

ON JUNE 13, 2014.

Case 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM Document 65 Filed 07/02/14 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

them and that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim be dismissed.1 The Findings and 

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff on the same date. 

On June 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting that he be provided a copy of the 

Court’s Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff reports that he received the order regarding service 

of the second amended complaint, which referenced the Findings and Recommendations, but he did 

not receive the Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff requests that the Court send him another 

copy and extend the deadline for any response to the Findings and Recommendations. 

Plaintiff’s request for a copy and an extension of time is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court 

is directed to re-serve Plaintiff with a copy of the Findings and Recommendations issued on June 13, 

2014. Within fourteen (14) days after being re-served with the 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

By separate order, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit service documents for Defendants J. Brown, Mendez, 

Nelson, Stone and Webster. (ECF No. 60.) Defendants Reeves, Trimble, Martinez, Quezada and Lopez have already 

appeared in this action through counsel and the submission of additional service documents was not necessary for these 

defendants. Plaintiff returned service documents on June 25, 2014, and the Court directed service by the United States 

Marshal. 

Case 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM Document 65 Filed 07/02/14 Page 2 of 2