Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00105-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANARD KITCHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TORDSEN, et al.,

Defendants. 

_____________________________/

1:12-cv-0105-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN OF

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 

(ECF Nos. 28 & 29)

Plaintiff Lanard Kitchens (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in

a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On February 28, 2013, after reviewing Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, the Court

ordered Plaintiff to either file another amended complaint or notify the Court of his

willingness to proceed only on his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant

Tordsen and his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants Tordsen,

Coker, Leach, and Day. (ECF No. 28.) On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff notified the Court of

his willingness to forgo an amended complaint and proceed with his cognizable claims

under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 29.)

Accordingly, all claims in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint except for his First

Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Tordsen and his Fourteenth Amendment

-1-

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 30 Filed 04/09/13 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

due process claim against Defendants Tordsen, Coker, Leach, and Day should now be

dismissed.

The Court hereby RECOMMENDS the following:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Coker,

Leach, and Day be DISMISSED with prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants Marryanne Tordsen and Costa violated his

rights under Cal. Code of Regulations §§ 3370(c), 3450 as well as Cal.

Department Operations Manual § 54046.8 be DISMISSED with prejudice;

3. Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant Marryanne Tordsen violated Cal. Code of

Regulations §§ 3361(a), 3354.2(c)(1) be DISMISSED with prejudice;

4. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Marryanne Tordsen violated Cal. Civ. Code

56.10 be DISMISSED with prejudice;

5. Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief be DISMISSED; and

6. Defendants Marryanne Tordsen and Costa be dismissed from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Within fourteen (14) 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.” 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. Y1 st,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 30 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 2