Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01031/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01031-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE EDWARD HARRIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-1031 JAM EFB P

vs.

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed December 10, 2010, the court found that plaintiff had stated

sufficient allegations to state a claim against defendant Sisson and informed plaintiff he could

proceed against defendant Sisson only or file an amended complaint to attempt to state

cognizable claims against other defendants. The court also informed plaintiff that the court

would consider his decision to proceed only as to defendant Sisson as consent to the dismissal of

plaintiff’s defective claims against defendants Hull, Dillard, Turner, Cochoran, Felker,

McDonald, Drieth, Grannis and Tinetti, without prejudice. On December 20, 2010, plaintiff

returned documents for service against defendant Sisson. 

////

////

Case 2:10-cv-01031-JAM-EFB Document 36 Filed 01/05/11 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against

defendants Hull, Dillard, Turner, Cochoran, Felker, McDonald, Drieth, Grannis and Tinetti be

dismissed without prejudice. 

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 fourteen days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 5, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01031-JAM-EFB Document 36 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 2