(PC) Gann v. Valley State Prison et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING 29 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/07/2021. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:19-cv-01797-DAD-GSA (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 29)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Nathaniel Marcus Gann is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a

20

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On May 3, 2021, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this

22

action proceed only against defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., Dining Hall Officer Paez, and

23

Culinary Staff Members Anguiano, Chapas, Lucero, Marquez, Cruz, and Moosebaur for violation

24

of RLUIPA, violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, and adverse conditions of

25

confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against defendants Warden Raythel Fisher,

26

Jr., and Moosebaur for failure to protect plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and

27

against defendant Moosebaur for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and that all

28

other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state a
1

1

claim. (Doc. No. 29.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided

2

notice that any objections must be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) No objections have been filed

3

to date, and the time to do so has passed.

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

5

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

6

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

7

Accordingly,

8

1.

This action now proceeds as follows:

9

a. Against defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., Dining Hall Officer Paez, and

10

Culinary Staff Members Anguiano, Chapas, Lucero, Marquez, Cruz, and

11

Moosebaur for violation of RLUIPA, violation of the First Amendment Free

12

Exercise Clause, and adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth

13

Amendment;

14

b. Against defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., and Moosebaur for failure to

15

protect plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and

16

c. Against defendant Moosebaur for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

17

2.

All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action;

18

3.

Plaintiff’s claims for violation of equal protection, improper inmate appeals process,

19

and conspiracy are dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any

20

claims upon which relief may be granted;

21

4.

Defendants CDCR, John Doe #1 (Headquarter Community Resource Manager), John

22

Doe #2 (Associate Director of the Division of Adult Institutions), John Doe #3 (CDCR

23

Departmental Food Administrator), J. Knight (Appeals Examiner), T. Thornton

24

(Appeals Analyst, VSP), Timothy Anderson (inmate), John Doe #4 (inmate), Keene

25

(Housing Unit Officer), Avila-Gonzalez (Correctional Officer), Sergeant Clements,

26

Sergeant Santoya, C. Hernandez (Food Manager), Mohktar (Food Manager), and

27

Hayman (Culinary Supervisor Cook II) are dismissed from this action based on

28

plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which relief may be granted;
2

1
2
3
4

and
5.

This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 7, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3