Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00674/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00674-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID C. PATKINS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ALOMARI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00674-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATION 

(Doc. 15)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, David C. Patkins, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which he filed on May 7, 2014. 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 September 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations 

which was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to the parties that objections to the 

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on 

September 28, 2015. Local Rule 304(b), (d). 

In his objections, Plaintiff argues that inclusion of his retaliation claim against Defendant 

Davis in this action along with his retaliation claims against Defendants Davies and Vargas does 

not violate Rule 18. However, Plaintiff fails to show any relation between his claim against 

Defendant Davis to his claims against Defendants Davies and Vargas -- other than that Defendant 

Davis is their supervisor -- which is insufficient for relation under Rule 18.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 

Case 1:14-cv-00674-LJO-JLT Document 17 Filed 10/06/15 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

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. the Findings and Recommendations, filed on September 4, 2015, is adopted in full; 

2. this action is to proceed on Plaintiff's claims (Claim 1 and Claim 2) against 

Defendants Davies and Vargas for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment 

as stated in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) which was filed on October 8, 

2014;

3. Plaintiff's claim (Claim 9) against Defendant Davis for retaliation in violation of 

the First Amendment is dismissed without prejudice as its inclusion in this action 

violates Rule 18;

4. all other claims and Defendants are dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's 

failure to state cognizable claims under section 1983; and

5. this action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for directing service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00674-LJO-JLT Document 17 Filed 10/06/15 Page 2 of 2