Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01368/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01368-25/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONELL THOLMER,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1368-GEB-CMK-P

vs.

CHERYL K. PLILER, et al.,

Defendants ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

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

Eastern District of California local rules.

On January 28, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

(Doc. 80) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. No objections to the

findings and recommendations have been filed.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. 

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01368-GEB -CMK Document 83 Filed 03/13/08 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 28, 2008, are adopted in

full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 56) plaintiff’s claim regarding his

placement in administrative segregation for failure to exhaust is granted;

3. The motion to dismiss defendant Ventimiglia for failure to state a claim is

granted and defendant Ventimiglia is dismissed without prejudice;

4. Defendants Banks and Garcia are dismissed with prejudice because these

defendants were only named in the unexhausted claim regarding plaintiff’s placement in

administrative segregation;

5. The magistrate judge’s screening order (Doc. 33) is ratified; plaintiff has

not stated an Eighth Amendment claim and has not stated a claim against Pliler, Stratton, Stiles,

Wilson and Morrow;

6. As some of the deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint may be curable,

plaintiff may file a second amended complaint to attempt to state a claim against the supervisory

defendants Pliler, Stratton, Stiles and Ventimiglia within 30 days of the date of service of this

order;

7. Plaintiff is also provided an opportunity to try to link his claims to

defendants Wilson and Morrow if he chooses to file a second amended complaint; 

8. This action is limited to plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims

regarding his retention in administrative segregation;

9. If plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the

date of service of this order, this action will proceed against defendants Walker, Mayfield, Menni,

Rosario, and Vance; and

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01368-GEB -CMK Document 83 Filed 03/13/08 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

3

11. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

Dated: March 12, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01368-GEB -CMK Document 83 Filed 03/13/08 Page 3 of 3