Rodriguez v. Hubbard et al

Filing 103

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Regarding Dismissal of Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis, Foster, and Freir 100 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/29/14: Fourteen-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

Case No. 1:10-cv-00858 LJO DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF
DEFENDANTS HUBBARD, CATE,
HARRINGTON, SOTO, GRISSOM, DAVIS,
FOSTER, AND FREIR

HUBBARD, et al.,
[ECF No. 100]

14
Defendants.

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

15
_____________________________________/
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Luis Valenzuela Rodriguez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 5, 2010. This action is
proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington,
Biter, Soto, Phillips, Da Veiga, Ozaeta, Betzinger, Gregory, Garza, Wegman, Alic, Grissom,
Speidell, Davis, Foster, Freir, and Rankin (“Defendants”) on claims of violation of the Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
To date, Plaintiff has not effected service on Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto,
Grissom, Davis, Foster, and Freir.
On September 25, 2014, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why

1 Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis, Foster, and Freir should not be
2 dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff was granted
3 twenty (20) days to show cause. More than twenty days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to
4 show cause or respond to the Court’s order. Plaintiff was forewarned that failure to respond to the
5 order or failure to show good cause would result in dismissal of the above-stated Defendants.
6
7

RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington,

8 Soto, Grissom, Davis, Foster and Freir be DISMISSED from the action.
9

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)
11 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written
12 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
13 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections
14 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.
15 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

October 29, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2