Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02343/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02343-9/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

JAMES L. BROOKS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2343 DFL PAN P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al., 

Defendants. 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 General Order No. 262.

On August 28 and 30, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all

parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen

days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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

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

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02343-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 09/29/06 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

 Plaintiff is cautioned that any proposed second amended complaint must be complete in 1

itself without reference to a prior pleading. See Local Rule 15-220. For that reason, plaintiff

should include his claims against defendants Watson and Rohlfing in a proposed second

amended complaint. 

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 28, 2006 are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ January 6, 2006 motion to dismiss, joined by defendant Haak on

June 5, 2006, is granted;

3. Except as provided in paragraph 4 of this order, plaintiff’s claims against all

defendants except defendants Rohlfing and Watson are dismissed without prejudice for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit;

4. Plaintiff’s claim against defendants Alameida, Hubbard and Johnson that the

prison lockdown deprived him of access to necessary physical therapy and rehabilitation services

is dismissed with leave to amend; 

5. Plaintiff is granted a period of thirty days from the date of this order in which

to file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that states a cognizable claim for

relief against defendants Alameida, Hubbard, and/or Johnson ;

1

6. Defendant Rohlfing is directed to file and serve an answer to the amended

complaint within twenty days from the date of this order; and

7. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

DATED: 9/28/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02343-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2