Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02548/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02548-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS SOLIS ARREOLA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2548 DFL GGH P

vs.

RODERICK HICKMAN, 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 February 27, 2006, the court issued an order addressing plaintiff’s first

amended complaint filed January 30, 2006. The court found that the first amended complaint

stated a colorable claim for relief against defendants Naku and Solomon. The court dismissed

with leave to amend the claims against defendants Mahmoud, Tan, Thor, Rohrer and Duerv. 

On March 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The court has

separately issued an order finding that the second amended complaint fails to state a colorable

claim for relief. In this order, the court directed service of the first amended complaint as to

defendants Naku and Solomon. For the reasons stated in the February 27, 2006, order, the court

now recommends dismissal of the claims against defendants Mahmoud, Tan, Thor, Rohrer and

Duerv contained in the first amended complaint.

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 8 Filed 03/24/06 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

Accorrdingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the claims against

defendants Mahmoud, Tan, Thor, Rohrer and Duerv contained in the first amended complaint

filed January 30, 2006, be dismissed for the reasons stated in the February 27, 2006, order.

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: 3/24/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

arr2548.56

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 8 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 2