Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05812/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05812-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUST MARION JANIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05812-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Docs. 39 and 41) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY

DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE FOURTH

AMENDED COMPLAINT, LIMITED TO

AMENDED FTCA CLAIM

Plaintiff Gust Marion Janis (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On April 3, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which

was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that anyObjection to the Findings and

Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed a partial Objection to the

Findings and Recommendations on April 30, 2007.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

Court finds the Findings andRecommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 3, 2007, is adopted in full;

Case 1:04-cv-05812-SKO Document 43 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 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 The first paragraph numbered 45. 

1

2

2. Paragraphs 46 through 49, on pages 22 and 23, are stricken from the third amended

complaint;

3. This action shall proceed on the following claims brought pursuant to Bivens:

a. An Eighth Amendment medical care claim against defendants Herrera,

Horton, Greggs, R. Johnson, Keffer, Smith, Henderson, Pacheco, Brown,

Marshall, Tuite, Solis, and Stephenson based on the allegations set forth in

paragraph 9;

b. A retaliation claim against defendants Pacheco, Brown, Stephenson, and

Claridy based on the allegations set forth in paragraph 10;

c. An Eighth Amendment medical care claim against defendants Johnson, Tuite,

and Smith based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs11 and 12;

d. An Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Sanford, Keffer, Herrera,

Kramer, Smith, Johnson, and Haro based on the conditions of the cell

plaintiff was confined in as set forth in paragraph 17;

e. A retaliation claim against defendants Carlson and Horton based on the

allegations set forth in paragraphs 23 and 24;

f. A retaliation claim against defendants D. Nodle based on the allegations set

forth in paragraph 35;

g. An Eighth Amendment medical care claim against defendants Schultz, Gant,

Booth, Luna, Stahley, Orozoco, Brown, Milligan, Rios, DeVere, Spencer, and

Wolf based on the allegations set forth in paragraph 38;

h. A retaliation claim against defendants Orozoco and Milligan based on the

allegations set forth in paragraphs 44 and 45 ;

1

4. All other claims for violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, brought pursuant to

Bivens, are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim;

///

Case 1:04-cv-05812-SKO Document 43 Filed 05/11/07 Page 2 of 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

3

5. Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is dismissed from this action and this action

proceed as one for damages only;

6. Defendants Adams, Gunji, Lappin, Aramdarez, Gonzalez, Chavez, Bills, Falkowski,

Klein, Sterling, Franco, Willis, Nodle, Oliva, and Flores are dismissed from this

action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be

granted against them; and

7. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within

which to file a fourth amended complaint amending his Federal Tort Claims Act

claim, with the restriction that if plaintiff attempts to add any new claims or parties

other than the United States to this action or includes any claims that have been

dismissed, his fourth amended complaint will be stricken from the record and

plaintiff will be subject to sanctions for failing to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05812-SKO Document 43 Filed 05/11/07 Page 3 of 3