Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00642/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00642-4/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 

KEVIN FISHER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. CAPPEL, et al, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0642 AC P 

ORDER & 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 By separate order the court has found plaintiff’s complaint appropriate for service as to an 

Eighth Amendment claim against one defendant. However, for the reasons set forth in the order 

filed on June 9, 2013, the undersigned will now recommend dismissal of the remaining claims of 

the original complaint. Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against all defendants and his Eighth 

Amendment claims against defendants Swarthout and Rosario were previously dismissed with 

leave to amend. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies 

previously identified. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make a random assignment of a 

district judge to this case. 

 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that, for the reasons explained in the order filed on 

June 20. 2013 (ECF No. 9): (1) defendants Swarthout and Rosario be dismissed from this action; 

and (2) plaintiff’s claims of retaliation be dismissed. 

Case 2:13-cv-00642-GEB-AC Document 14 Filed 08/09/13 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 

27 

28 

2

 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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are 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: August 9, 2013 

AC:009 

fish0642.ofr 

Case 2:13-cv-00642-GEB-AC Document 14 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 2