Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01931/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01931-3/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

MICHAEL WITKIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. SWARTHOUT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1931 GEB KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On February 4, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

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

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

/////

Case 2:13-cv-01931-GEB-KJN Document 29 Filed 03/05/15 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 4, 2015, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is granted in part, and denied in part, as 

set forth below:

a. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Swarthout 

and Popovits in connection with plaintiff’s outdoor exercise claim, as well as his Eighth 

Amendment claims against defendants Young and Popovits, is dismissed with prejudice.

b. The following claims are dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff renewing such 

claims in a second amended complaint:

1. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Sanchez in connection 

with the rules violation imposed on March 8, 2013;

2. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Popovits based on the 

April 17, 2013 bunk area search;

3. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Wilkinson based on the 

March 21, 2013 search; and

4. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim as to defendant Swarthout.

c. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days

of the date of this order.

Dated: March 5, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-01931-GEB-KJN Document 29 Filed 03/05/15 Page 2 of 2