Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00537/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00537-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WILSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0537 FCD GGH P

vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BAKER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 8, 2007,the court issued an order addressing the third amended

complaint filed July 12, 2007. The court found that the third amended complaint stated a

colorable Equal Protection claim against defendants Khoury, Mitchell, Schwartz, Grannis,

Pearson, Tilton and Kernan. The court also found that the third amended complaint stated a

colorable retaliation claim against defendant Baker. The court separately recommended that the

remaining claims be dismissed.

On August 27, 2007, plaintiff filed objections. After reviewing the objections, the

court determined that plaintiff stated a colorable due process claim against defendants Arnold,

Mitchell, St. Germaine and Cullen regarding his placement and retention in administrative

segregation. The court has separately issued an order vacating the August 8, 2007, findings and

Case 2:06-cv-00537-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 11/13/07 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

2

recommendations and ordering service of defendants Arnold, Mitchell, St. Germaine and Cullen. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the August 8, 2007, order and the order

issued simultaneously with these findings and recommendations, IT IS HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that all claims contained in the third amended complaint but for the

following be dismissed: 1) the Equal Protection claims against defendants Khoury Mitchell,

Schwartz, Grannis, Pearson, Tilton and Kernan; 2) the retaliation claim against defendants Baker;

and 3) the due process claims as to defendants Arnold Mitchell, St. Germaine and Cullen as to

plaintiff’s placement and retention in administrative segregation. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

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).

DATED: 11/13/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

will537.fr

Case 2:06-cv-00537-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 11/13/07 Page 2 of 2