Davis v. Woodford et al

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/24/2012 ADOPTING 71 Findings and Recommendations in full; GRANTING in part 36 Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; DISMISSING, without leave to amend, Plaintiffs due process, § 1985(2), and § 1986 claims; DISMISSING, with leave to amend, Plaintiffs retaliation claims against Meier, Barnes, Wagner, and Coe, and Plaintiffs § 1983 conspiracy claims; ORDERING Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days; VACATING the deadline for filing dispositive motions. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:05-cv-1898 JAM EFB P

vs.
D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

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

19

On August 22, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

20

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

21

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days from the

22

date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings

23

and recommendations and defendants have filed a response thereto.

24

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

25

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

26

////
1

1

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

2

proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2012, are adopted in full;

5

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Dckt.

6

No. 36), is granted in part;

7
8

3. Plaintiff’s due process, § 1985(2), and § 1986 claims are dismissed without
leave to amend;

9
10

4. Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Meier, Barnes, Wagner, and Coe, and
plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claims are dismissed with leave to amend;

11

5. Plaintiff may, within thirty days, file a third amended complaint consistent

12

with the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations regarding the scope of leave to

13

amend;

14

6. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is vacated.

15
16
17

DATED:

October 24, 2012
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2