Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01253/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01253-7/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

MELVIN R. ARRANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY SANTORO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01253-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANT HERRERA’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 22, 25)

Plaintiff Melvin R. Arrant is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 30, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that defendant O. Herrera’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 22) be granted. (Doc. 

No. 25.) Specifically, the magistrate judge recommendation that plaintiff’s First Amendment 

retaliation claim against defendant Herrera be dismissed, without leave to amend, due to 

plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id. at 8.) In so 

recommending, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that 

defendant had taken an “adverse action” against him (a requisite element of a retaliation claim) 

because the allegedly falsified counseling-only chrono that defendant Herrera had issued to 

plaintiff does not constitute an “adverse action.” (Id. at 4–8.) The findings and recommendations 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 29 Filed 06/11/21 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

27

28

2

were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within

twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 8–9.) On May 19, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to 

the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 26.) Defendant Herrera did not file any 

objections but did file a response to plaintiff’s objections on June 2, 2021. (Doc. No. 28.)

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

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 

objections and defendant’s responses thereto, the court finds the findings and recommendations to 

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

In his objections to the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff focuses on 

explaining why he believes that defendant Herrera falsified the counseling-only chrono. (Doc. 

No. 26 at 3–6.) Plaintiff’s explanations and beliefs in this regard, however, are not relevant to the 

court’s analysis of defendant Herrera’s motion to dismiss. In determining whether a complaint 

states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court accepts as true the allegations in the 

complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. 

King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 

1989). In other words, the court has already assumed for the purposes of defendant’s motion to 

dismiss that defendant Herrera did falsify the counseling-only chrono as plaintiff has alleged in 

his complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections in this regard provide no basis upon which to 

reject the pending findings and recommendations. 

In addition, plaintiff did not meaningfully address the magistrate judge’s conclusion that 

the issuance of a counseling-only chrono (falsified or not) does not constitute an adverse action or 

address the many cases cited in the findings and recommendations in which district courts have 

similarly concluded that issuance of a counseling-only chrono to is not an adverse action 

sufficient to serve as the basis for a retaliation claim. (See Doc. No. 25 at 6–7.)

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 30, 2021 (Doc. No. 25) are 

adopted in full;

2. Defendant Herrera’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 22) is granted;

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 29 Filed 06/11/21 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

27

28

3

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate defendant Herrera as a named 

defendant in this action; and

4. The remaining defendants shall file an answer to the complaint within twenty-one 

(21) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2021 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 29 Filed 06/11/21 Page 3 of 3