Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00124-11/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

MARCUS R. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

DECLARATORY RELIEF CLAIM AND

DEFENDANTS PETERS AND WOODFORD

FROM ACTION

(Docs. 26 and 27)

Plaintiff Marcus R. Williams (“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 March 28, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. After obtaining an extension of

time, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations on May 29, 2007.

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 andRecommendationsto be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

The issues raised in Plaintiff’s objections have been sufficiently addressed in the Findings and

Recommendations. This Court agrees that Plaintiff has not stated a claim against Defendant Peter

and Defendant Woodford because the complaint fails to state that Plaintiff’s appeal put them on

notice of a Constitutional violation and these Defendants had the ability to stop the Constitutional

Case 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS Document 34 Filed 06/04/07 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

27

28

2

violation. See Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9 Cir.1995) (holding that supervisor can th

violate a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights by failing to intervene when official acts

unconstitutionally if supervisor had ability to intervene). Given that the complain has already been

amended twice and screened by the Magistrate Judge three times, the court declines to allow further

amendments. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (requiring court to give pro se

th

prison litigants leave to amend at least once if complaint’s deficiencies can be cured). To the extent

Plaintiff raises entirely new allegations against different guards and a different prison in the

objections, Plaintiff is informed that objections to Findings and Recommendations are not the

appropriate place to raise new theories of relief. See Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633,

638-39 (9 Cir. 1988) (new theory cannot properly be raised in objections to Findings and th

Recommendations). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 28, 2007, is adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed October 13,

2006, on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment denial of exercise claim against defendants

Adams, Hansen, Wan, and Beeler only;

3. Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is dismissed; and

4. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment denial of exercise claim against defendants Peters and

Woodford is dismissed, with prejudice; and

5. Defendants Peters and Woodford are dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS Document 34 Filed 06/04/07 Page 2 of 2