Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01880/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01880-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LYDELL BURGERS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv1880 DMS (NLS)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION, (2)

GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS AND (3) GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.

DOMINGO URIBE JR., et al.,

Defendants.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Michael Lydell Burgers (“Plaintiff”), a state

prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his First Amendment right to freedom of

speech, Fifth Amendment right to due process, Fourteenth Amendment rights to due

process and equal protection and retaliated against him for exercising his First

Amendment rights. 

On August 7, 2014, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim,

and grant Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. This Court, having

reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, and there being no objections filed

thereto, adopts the R&R in its entirety. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby granted

- 1 - 13cv1880

Case 3:13-cv-01880-DMS-NLS Document 32 Filed 09/15/14 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

in part and denied in part. Specifically, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted with

respect to Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection

claim and Fourteenth Amendment due process claim as it relates to the sixteen

photographs and one catalog that were not confiscated. Defendants’ motion is denied

with respect to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim and his Fourteenth Amendment due process

claim relating to the four photographs and one catalog that were confiscated. The Court

also grants Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment of no exhaustion on

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim as it relates to the sixteen

photographs and one catalog that were not confiscated. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(C), Defendants shall file

their Answer to the Complaint within 21 days of the filing of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 15, 2014

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv1880

Case 3:13-cv-01880-DMS-NLS Document 32 Filed 09/15/14 Page 2 of 2