Patkins v. Alomari et al
Filing
17
ORDER adopting 15 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/6/2015. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DAVID C. PATKINS,
10
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION
v.
12
Case No. 1:14-cv-00674-LJO-JLT (PC)
ALOMARI, et al.,
(Doc. 15)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
13
Defendants.
14
Plaintiff, David C. Patkins, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
15
16
this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which he filed on May 7, 2014. The matter was
17
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
18
302.
19
On September 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations
20
which was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to the parties that objections to the
21
Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on
22
September 28, 2015. Local Rule 304(b), (d).
23
In his objections, Plaintiff argues that inclusion of his retaliation claim against Defendant
24
Davis in this action along with his retaliation claims against Defendants Davies and Vargas does
25
not violate Rule 18. However, Plaintiff fails to show any relation between his claim against
26
Defendant Davis to his claims against Defendants Davies and Vargas -- other than that Defendant
27
Davis is their supervisor -- which is insufficient for relation under Rule 18.
28
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a
1
1
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
2
Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4
1. the Findings and Recommendations, filed on September 4, 2015, is adopted in full;
5
2. this action is to proceed on Plaintiff's claims (Claim 1 and Claim 2) against
6
Defendants Davies and Vargas for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment
7
as stated in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) which was filed on October 8,
8
2014;
9
3. Plaintiff's claim (Claim 9) against Defendant Davis for retaliation in violation of
10
the First Amendment is dismissed without prejudice as its inclusion in this action
11
violates Rule 18;
12
4. all other claims and Defendants are dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's
13
failure to state cognizable claims under section 1983; and
14
5. this action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for directing service of process.
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
October 6, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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?