Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01342/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01342-4/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

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

Plaintiff Darrell Junior Lescallett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

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

On June 2, 2015, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants Gipson, 

Bloomfield and Doe Defendants regarding his identification as a 2-5 gang affiliate and placement on a 

modified program, but failed to state any other cognizable claims. The Magistrate Judge therefore 

provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint or notify the Court whether he 

was agreeable to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 12.) On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff 

notified the Court of his intention to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 13.) 

DARRELL JUNIOR LESCALLETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. DIAZ, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01342-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS 

(ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14)

Case 1:13-cv-01342-LJO-BAM Document 18 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 2
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

On June 29, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that (1) this 

action proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on November 24, 2014, for retaliation 

in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Gipson, Broomfield and Doe Defendants 

arising out of events on June 26, 2012, which resulted in Plaintiff’s placement on a modified program; 

(2) Plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed from this action, including Plaintiff’s additional 

retaliation, Due Process and Eighth Amendment claims; and (3) Defendants Weaver, Juarez, Prudhel 

and McMurrey be dismissed from this action. The Findings and Recommendations were served on 

Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 

service. (ECF No. 14.) More than fourteen days have passed and no objections have been filed. 

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 29, 2015, are adopted in full; 

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on November 

24, 2014, for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Gipson, Broomfield 

and Doe Defendants arising out of events on June 26, 2012, which resulted in Plaintiff’s placement on 

a modified program;

3. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed from this action, including Plaintiff’s 

additional retaliation, Due Process and Eighth Amendment claims; and

4. Defendants Weaver, Juarez, Prudhel, and McMurrey are dismissed from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01342-LJO-BAM Document 18 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 2