Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00425/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00425-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED PRICE,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. R. CUNNINGHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00425 AWY YNP GSA (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 12, 2008, the Court issued an order finding that

Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims against Defendants Cunningham and Mullins for

violation of the First and Eighth Amendments, but does not state a cognizable Fourteenth

Amendment claim. Plaintiff also fails to state any claims against Defendants Gambline, Hartman,

Mack, Large, Sailor, Lynker or Hopkins. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended

complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be

cognizable. On March 1, 2010, Plaintiff notified the Court that he does not wish to amend and is

willing to proceed on the claims found cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, this Findings and

Recommendations now issues. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner th

must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state

a claim).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1

Case 1:08-cv-00425-AWI-BAM Document 13 Filed 03/03/10 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

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Cunningham and

Mullins for violations of the First and Eighth Amendments;

2. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim be dismissed for failure to state a claim;

and

3. Defendants Gambline, Hartman, Mack, Large, Sailor, Lynker and Hopkins be

dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against him.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 3, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00425-AWI-BAM Document 13 Filed 03/03/10 Page 2 of 2