Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01253/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01253-3/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

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 (1) DENYING 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and (2) 

(Doc. Nos. 2, 10, 13)

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

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

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

SEPTEMBER 3, 2020 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On September 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction and a 

temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2.) On October 28, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge 

issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction and temporary restraining order be denied. (Doc. No. 10.) Those findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 4.) No objections to the 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 14 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 4
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

findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed.

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, the court finds the

September 3, 2020 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis. 

NOVEMBER 18, 2020 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On October 30, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), finding plaintiff stated separate cognizable claims for 

retaliation against Defendants Lozano, Garcia, Dodson, Herrera, Valdez, Felix, Flores,

1

and 

Chanel; stated separate cognizable excessive force claims against Defendants Florez and Tapia; 

but failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff was advised he could 

elect to file either an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the screening order 

or a notice of his intent to proceed on only the claims found to be cognizable by the screening 

order. (Id. at 18.) On November 12, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed only on 

his cognizable claims and sought reconsideration and clarification as to whether he had alleged a 

cognizable claim against Defendant Tapia for retaliation. (Doc. No. 12 at 2–3.)

On November 18, 2020, the pending findings and recommendations recommending were 

issued, recommending plaintiff’s claims for retaliation against Defendants Lozano, Garcia, 

Dodson, Herrera, Valdez, Felix, Flores, Chanelo, and Tapia as well as separate excessive force 

claims against Defendants Florez and Tapia be permitted to proceed and recommending that all 

other claims and defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. (Doc. No. 13.) 

The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections 

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the order’s date of service. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has 

1

 The screening order correctly found plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant A. Flores was 

cognizable and described in detail the allegations supporting the claim against defendant 

A. Flores; however, the conclusion of the screening order and the pending findings and 

recommendations erroneously describe the retaliation claim as brought against defendant J.

Florez. (Doc. Nos. 11 at 4–7, 17; 13 at 2.) The court clarifies herein that plaintiff has alleged a 

cognizable retaliation claim against defendant A. Flores and plaintiff has alleged a separate, 

cognizable excessive force claim against J. Florez.

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 14 Filed 12/16/20 Page 2 of 4
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

not filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and the time in which to do so has 

passed.

Again, 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, the court also 

finds the November 18, 2020 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. 

The undersigned adds the following only to clarify that while defendants Dodson and 

Felix—referred to in plaintiff’s complaint as S&E Officer Dodson and Sgt. Felix, respectively—

were not listed in the caption of the complaint, both were clearly identified in the body of the 

complaint and had relief sought against them, which demonstrated they were intended to be

named as defendants in this action. (See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 1 at 9–11, 21; 11 at 10–11, 17.) 

Although plaintiff should have listed both as defendants in the caption as required by Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 10, plaintiff’s claims nevertheless may be maintained against both 

Dodson and Felix. Yeseta v. Baima, 837 F.2d 380, 382 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Rice v. Hamilton 

Air Force Base Commissary, 720 F.2d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 1983) (“a party may be properly in a 

case if the allegations in the body of the complaint make it plain that the party is intended as a 

defendant.”))

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 28, 2020 (Doc. No. 10) and 

the findings and recommendations issued on November 18, 2020 (Doc. No. 13) are 

both adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order 

(Doc. No. 2) is denied; 

3. This action shall proceed against defendants Lozano, E. Garcia, Dodson, 

O. Herrera, J. Valdez, Felix, A. Flores, P. Chanelo, and D. Tapia for retaliation as 

explained herein and in the Court’s October 30, 2020 screening order, and separate 

excessive force claims against defendants J. Florez and D. Tapia; 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 14 Filed 12/16/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

4. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from the action; and

5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 14 Filed 12/16/20 Page 4 of 4