Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00447/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00447-4/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

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

JOHN REYNA,

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:20-cv-00447-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 

PROCEED ONLY WITH PLAINTIFF’S

RETALIATION CLAIMS AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS VALDEZ, PUTNAM, AND 

ALCALA, AND THAT ALL OTHER 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 

DISMISSED

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS

John Reyna (“Plaintiff”) is a Kings County Jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on March 27, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) On July 28, 2021, the court screened 

the Complaint and issued an order dismissing it for violation of Rule 18, with leave to amend. 

(ECF No. 6.) On November 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 

13.) 

Case 1:20-cv-00447-KES-GSA Document 16 Filed 03/10/22 Page 1 of 3
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

The First Amended Complaint names as defendants Kings County Jail, Valdez 

(Mailroom Staff), Putnam (Classification Staff), Alcala (Classification Staff), and Syndre 

(Mailroom Staff) (collectively, “Defendants”), and brings claims for First Amendment free 

exercise of religion, violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 

(RLUIPA), retaliation, and violation of due process.

The court screened the First Amended Complaint and found that it states cognizable 

claims for retaliation under the First Amendment against Defendants Valdez, Putnam, and 

Alcala, but no other claims against any Defendant. (ECF No. 14.) On February 14, 2022, the 

court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a Second Amended Complaint, 

or (2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the retaliation claims found 

cognizable by the court. (Id.) 

On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the 

retaliation claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 15.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Valdez, 

Putnam, and Alcala for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;

3. Plaintiff’s claims for violation of due process, religious freedom under the First 

Amendment, and violation of RLUIPA be dismissed from this action based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; 

4. Defendants Kings County Jail and Syndre (Mailroom Staff) be dismissed from 

this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which 

relief may be granted; and

5. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 

including initiation of service of process.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

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

fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 

Case 1:20-cv-00447-KES-GSA Document 16 Filed 03/10/22 Page 2 of 3
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

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: March 9, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00447-KES-GSA Document 16 Filed 03/10/22 Page 3 of 3