Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01423/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01423-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN HAMMLER,

Plaintiff, 

v.

E. COTA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-1423-JAM-EFB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 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 302. 

On February 13, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 13, 2020, are adopted in full.

2. Plaintiff’s “First Amendment (Substantive)” claims against defendants Cota, Burnes,

Mccarvel, Garza, and Rodriguez are dismissed without leave to amend.

Case 2:19-cv-01423-DAD-JDP Document 21 Filed 03/24/20 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

3. Plaintiff’s claim that defendant Hubbard denied his substantive First Amendment

rights by issuing a false RVR against plaintiff is dismissed without leave to amend.

4. Plaintiff’s substantive First Amendment claims against Hubbard for preventing him

from speaking with a psychologist and against Tumacder are dismissed with leave to

amend.

5. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against Mccarvel, Tumacder, Garza,

and Rodriguez are dismissed with leave to amend.

6. Plaintiff’s substantive due process, procedural due process, equal protection, and

“deliberate indifference” claims are dismissed with leave to amend as to all defendants.

7. This court finds that plaintiff has, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, stated potentially cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims against

defendants Cota, Burnes, Hubbard, Case, and Salcedo. 

8. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial 

proceedings.

DATED: March 23, 2020

/s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01423-DAD-JDP Document 21 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 2