Dixon v. Allison et al

Filing 47

ORDER ADOPTING 46 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/27/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RICK DIXON, No. 1:10-cv-02365-DAD-SAB Plaintiff, 11 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 12 13 KATHLEEN ALLISON, 14 Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 36, 46) 15 16 Plaintiff Rick Dixon is a former inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s fourth 18 amended complaint against defendant Allison for unconstitutional conditions of confinement for 19 denial of outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment, denial of the right to religious 20 expression in violation of the First Amendment, and denial of access to the courts in violation of 21 the First Amendment. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 22 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On November 18, 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 36.) On August 24 3, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that 25 defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted in part. (Doc. No. 46.) The parties were provided 26 thirty days in which to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id.) To date, 27 neither party has filed objections, and the time for doing so has passed. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the 3 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. The findings and recommendations, filed August 3, 2017, are adopted in full and 6 defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 36) is granted in part and denied in part 7 as follows; 8 2. claims as barred by the statute of limitations is granted; 9 10 3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the official capacity claims for monetary damages is granted; 11 12 Defendant’s motion to dismiss the religious expression and access to courts 4. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the unconstitutional conditions of confinement 13 claim for denial of outdoor exercise on the ground that defendant is entitled to 14 qualified immunity is denied without prejudice to that issue being raised at a later 15 stage in these proceedings; 16 5. capacity claims for monetary damages are dismissed; 17 18 Defendant’s religious expression claim, access to courts claim, and official 6. This action shall proceed only against defendant in her individual capacity with 19 respect to plaintiff’s unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim for denial 20 of outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 21 7. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: September 27, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?