Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN B. COLLINS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06258-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 67)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS, AND

REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 56)

Plaintiff Steven B. Collins (“plaintiff”) 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 72-302.

On May 8, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. 

To date, the parties have not filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 72 Filed 07/07/06 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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, filed May 8, 2006, is

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed January 27, 2006,

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim

for an injunction prohibiting defendants from

enforcing the grooming standards by punishing or

threatening to punish plaintiff is GRANTED on the

ground that the claim is MOOT in light of the

emergency modification to the grooming regulation;

and,

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim

for declaratory relief and an injunction mandating

the expungement from plaintiff’s central file of

all the disciplinary reports relating to noncompliance with the grooming is DENIED on the

ground that the claims are not rendered moot by

the emergency modification to the grooming

regulation; and

///

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 72 Filed 07/07/06 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

2. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge

for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 72 Filed 07/07/06 Page 3 of 3