Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00666/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00666-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELVIN CANNON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GALLAGHER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-00666-NONE-JDP

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT 

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS BE 

DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART

(Doc. Nos. 21, 42)

Plaintiff Kelvin Cannon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action 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 September 5, 2019, defendants Vang, Torres, Flores, Gonsalves, and Wilson moved to 

dismiss plaintiff’s claims against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 

21.) Defendants also moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief on the grounds that 

plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the prison where the alleged deprivations occurred. On 

February 28, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that the motion to dismiss the individual claims against them brought on behalf of 

defendants Vang, Torres, Flores, Gonsalves, and Wilson be denied, and that the defendants’

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief be granted. (Id.) Those findings and 

Case 1:18-cv-00666-JLT-HBK Document 43 Filed 04/02/20 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

2

recommendations were served on the parties, and contained notice that objections thereto were 

due within fourteen (14) days. (Id. at 6.) No party has objected to the pending findings and 

recommendations. 

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

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 28, 2020 (Doc. No. 42), are 

adopted in full;

2. the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s individual claims against them brought on behalf 

of defendants Vang, Torres, Flores, Gonsalves, and Wilson is denied;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief is granted;

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 21) is thus granted in part and denied in 

part; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00666-JLT-HBK Document 43 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 2