Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00876/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00876-5/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

DAVID WILSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0876 LKK GGH P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The court has separately issued an

order addressing the second amended complaint filed September 19, 2005. 

For the reasons stated in the concurrently issued order, the court recommends that

plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed. For the reasons stated in

that order, the court also recommends that the following claims be dismissed for failing to state

colorable claims pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act: 1)

denial of equal access to game room activities; 2) denial of equal access to telephone services; 3)

inadequate time to eat meals; 4) inadequate access to laundry services and cell maintenance units;

5) unequal access to showers; 6) improper review after placement in segregation. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the following claims contained in the

second amended complaint filed September 19, 2005, be dismissed: all claims brought pursuant

Case 2:05-cv-00876-KJM-DB Document 24 Filed 11/01/05 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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the following claims brought pursuant to the Americans with

Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act: 1) denial of equal access to game room activities; 2)

denial of equal access to telephone services; 3) inadequate time to eat meals; 4) inadequate

access to laundry services and cell maintenance units; 5) unequal access to showers; 6) improper

review after placement in segregation. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these 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).

DATED: 10/31/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

wil876.56

Case 2:05-cv-00876-KJM-DB Document 24 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 2