Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02684/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02684-5/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

JOE GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2684 LKK EFB P

vs.

D. K. BUTLER, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in a civil rights action. See 42

U.S.C. 1983. 

On March 14, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendants D. K.

Butler, R. Clayton, Lt. T. Steele, Sgt. D. Zaniroli, J. Pitts and J. Olson and his defective claim

against Lt. Vickrey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, with leave to amend. The court informed

plaintiff that he could proceed with his cognizable claims against defendant Lt. Vickrey by

submitting materials for service within 20 days, but the court would construe his election to do

so as consent to dismissal of his claims against defendants D. K. Butler, R. Clayton, Lt. T.

Steele, Sgt. D. Zaniroli, J. Pitts and J. Olson, and his defective claim against Lt. Vickrey without

leave to amend. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-02684-LKK -EFB Document 14 Filed 04/27/07 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

2

On April 6, 2007, plaintiff submitted materials for service of defendant Lt. Vickrey. 

The court finds plaintiff has consented to dismissal of claims against defendants D. K.

Butler, R. Clayton, Lt. T. Steele, Sgt. D. Zaniroli, J. Pitts and J. Olson, and his defective claim

against Vickrey without leave to amend. 

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that claims against defendants D. K. Butler, R.

Clayton, Lt. T. Steele, Sgt. D. Zaniroli, J. Pitts and J. Olson, and his defective claim against

Vickrey be dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 27, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02684-LKK -EFB Document 14 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 2