Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00026/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00026-12/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS B. CASTANEDA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

D. FOSTON, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

(ECF Nos. 28, 29)

Plaintiff Jesus B. Castaneda (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 6, 2013, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 

and found that it stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference against 

Defendants Reeves, John Doe, Trimble and Martinez, and a cognizable First Amendment 

retaliation claim against Defendants Quezada, Lopez and Martinez. However, the Court found

that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against Defendants Yates, Foston, Hammond, 

Foreman, Nesbit, Duenas, Custody Defendant Does 1-20, Medical Defendant Does 21-40, and 

Supervisory Custody Does 41-60, and that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable Fourteenth 

Amendment Due Process claim. 

The Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that this action proceed on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on November 4, 2012, against Defendants Reeves, John 

Doe, Trimble and Martinez for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 

Case 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM Document 39 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 3
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

and against Defendants Quezada, Lopez and Martinez for retaliation in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment; that Defendants Yates, Foston, Hammond, Foreman, Nesbit, Duenas, Custody 

Defendant Does 1-20, Medical Defendant Does 21-40, and Supervisory Custody Does 41-60 be 

dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim against them; 

and that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim be dismissed. The Findings and 

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections must be 

filed within thirty days after service. Following an extension of time, Plaintiff has not filed any 

objections. 

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

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on September 6, 2013, are adopted in 

full; 

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on 

November 4, 2012, against Defendants Reeves, John Doe, Trimble and Martinez

for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against 

Defendants Quezada, Lopez and Martinez for retaliation in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment;

3. Defendants Yates, Foston, Hammond, Foreman, Nesbit, Duenas, Custody 

Defendant Does 1-20, Medical Defendant Does 21-40, and Supervisory Custody 

Does 41-60 are DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a 

cognizable claim against them; and

4. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim is DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM Document 39 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-BAM Document 39 Filed 01/03/14 Page 3 of 3