Garcia v. Biter et al

Filing 32

ORDER Adopting 28 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Certain Claims and Parties, and Referring Matter Back to Magistrate Judge for Service of Process, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/9/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

FELIPE GARCIA,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

M. BITER, et al.,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND PARTIES, AND
REFERRING MATTER BACK TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR SERVICE OF
PROCESS

Defendants.

14

(Docs. 21 and 28)
15
_____________________________________/
16
17

Plaintiff Felipe Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 25, 2013. The matter was referred to a
19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On
20 December 18, 2014, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s third amended complaint and
21 recommended dismissal of certain claims and parties. Plaintiff filed timely objections on January
22 7, 2015. Local Rule 304(b), (d).
23

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a

24 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings
25 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1.

28 full;

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on December 18, 2014, is adopted in

1

2.

This action for damages shall proceed on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint

2 against Defendants Hernandez, Mosqueda, and Baker for retaliation in violation of the First
3 Amendment and endangering Plaintiff safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
4

3.

Plaintiff’s claims arising from the allegations set forth in paragraphs 10 through 13

5 are dismissed, with prejudice, for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim;
6

4.

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim arising from the rules violation report issued by

7 Defendant Hernandez, to the extent one is alleged, is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to
8 state a claim;
9

5.

Plaintiff’s section 1983 equal protection claim and section 1985(3) claim are

10 dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim
11

6.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hudspeth and Biter are dismissed, with

12 prejudice, for failure to state a claim;
13
14
15
16

7.

Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief is dismissed for failure to state a claim; and

8.
This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 9, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2