Williams v. Price et al

Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and DISMISSING Certain Claims signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/8/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COREY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:18-cv-00102-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(ECF No. 32)

14

BRANDON PRICE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Corey Williams, a civil detainee, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second

19

amended complaint which was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On September 28, 2018, the magistrate judge filed a findings and recommendations. The

22

findings and recommendations recommended dismissing certain claims without leave to amend.

23

The findings and recommendations was served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any

24

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the

25

date of service. The period for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed.

26

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

27

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

28

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1
2

1.

FULL;

3
4

The findings and recommendations, filed September 28, 2018, is ADOPTED IN

2.

This action shall proceed against Defendants Ahlin and Price in their official

5

capacity for substantive due process violations of the Fourteenth Amendment based

6

on the allegations that the amendment to section 4350 of Title 9 of the California

7

Code of Regulations is punitive in nature and the regulation is overly broad as it

8

prohibits devices not capable of connecting to the internet or having memory

9

storage capability; and on the procedural due process claim against Defendant Price
for implementing a policy more restrictive than section 4350;

10
11

3.

All other claims are dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim;

12

4.

The individual capacity claims against Defendants Ahlin and Price are dismissed
without leave to amend; and

13
14

5.

This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for initiation of service of
process.

15
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

November 8, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2