Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01097/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01097-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH DUANE ARLINE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN KEN CLARK,

Defendant.

 /

1:07-cv-01097-LJO-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ON

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS BASED ONLY ON

TWO SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF MODIFIED

PROGRAMMING, AND DISMISSING ALL

OTHER CLAIMS

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Keith Duane Arline, Jr. (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

July 27, 2007. (Doc. 1.) On March 31, 2010, the court found that plaintiff’s complaint states a

cognizable claim against defendant Warden Ken Clark for inadequate outdoor exercise under the

Eighth Amendment, with regard to two specific instances of modified programming, one beginning

on August 15, 2006, and the other beginning on October 20, 2006. (Doc. 40.) Plaintiff was given

leave to either file an amended complaint or notify the court that he is agreeable to proceeding only

with the claims found cognizable by the Court. On April 8, 2009, plaintiff filed written notice to the

court that he intends to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court. (Doc. 41.) 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed against defendant Warden Ken Clark for inadequate outdoor

exercise under the Eighth Amendment, only with regard to two specific instances of

1

Case 1:07-cv-01097-LJO-GBC Document 42 Filed 04/09/10 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

modified programming, one beginning on August 15, 2006, and the other beginning

on October 20, 2006; and

2. All remaining claims be dismissed from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 9, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01097-LJO-GBC Document 42 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 2