Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00011/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00011-6/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 

ARTHUR ANDERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

McINTRNY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0011 LKK CKD 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 June 4, 2014, 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 filed objections to the 

findings and recommendations. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations. 

 The magistrate judge recommends dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on January 2, 2014 (ECF No. 

Case 2:14-cv-00011-MCE-CKD Document 22 Filed 08/29/14 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

1) and a first amended complaint as of right on January 24, 2014 (ECF No. 6). The magistrate 

judge dismissed plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend and subsequently 

dismissed plaintiff’s second amended complaint with leave to amend. Orders filed March 14, 

2014 (ECF No. 13) and April 24, 2014 (ECF No. 17). On May 27, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion 

for leave to file a third amended complaint. In the findings and recommendations the magistrate 

judge finds that plaintiff has not filed a stand-alone third amended complaint, that he would be 

required to file a fourth amended complaint to make the operative pleading complete unto itself as 

required by Local Rule 220, and that such amendment would be futile because the allegations in 

the attachment to the motion to amend did not state a cognizable claim. Findings and 

Recommendations (ECF No. 19) at 2. Finally, the magistrate judge finds that another round of 

amendment would be futile and that this action should be dismissed. 

 In order to adopt this recommendation, the court must review all prior decisions of the 

magistrate judge dismissing plaintiff’s prior complaints with leave to amend. See McKeever v. 

Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). Upon completion of said review, the court finds that the 

first amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief against defendant McIntrny for 

retaliation.1 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 4, 2014, are not adopted; and 

 2. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent 

with this order. 

 DATED: August 28, 2014. 

 

1

 It appears from the magistrate judge’s screening order dismissing the first amended complaint 

that the magistrate judge recognized the possibility that plaintiff was attempting to raise a 

retaliation claim, as the order sets forth the standards applicable to such a claim. See Order filed 

March 14, 2014, at 3-4. The order does not explain why the magistrate judge did not find a 

cognizable retaliation claim in the first amended complaint. Plaintiff does not specifically 

identify retaliation as the basis for his first or second cause of action. However, the notice 

pleadings of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 do not require identification of the constitutional basis for the claim 

in order to state a cognizable claim for relief. See Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 

2008). The factual allegations of the first amended complaint are sufficient to state a claim for 

relief based on alleged retaliation. 

Case 2:14-cv-00011-MCE-CKD Document 22 Filed 08/29/14 Page 2 of 2