Walker v. CA Dept of Corrections & Rehabilitation, et al

Filing 47

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/24/2014 SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 45 are ADOPTED in full; Defendants' 22 motion to dismiss plaintiff's two re-opened First Amendment retaliation claims are GRANTED in PA RT and DENIED in Part; Plaintiff's request to reinstate his state law claims is DENIED; Plaintiff may proceed on his First Amended Complaint, or on a newly-filed Second Amended Complaint, no more than 20 pages in length; Within 30 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall either inform the court he intends to proceed on his First Amended Complaint, or file and serve a Second Amended Complaint.. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

K. JAMES WALKER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:09-cv-0569-WBS-KJN-P

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

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

18

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

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 22, 2014, the magistrate judge filed supplemental findings and

20
21

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all

22

parties that any objections to the supplemental findings and recommendations were to be filed

23

within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the supplemental findings and

24

recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the supplemental findings and recommendations

25
26

to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS

27

HEREBY ORDERED that:

28

////
1

1
2

1. The supplemental findings and recommendations filed January 22, 2014, are adopted
in full;
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22, 43) plaintiff’s two re-opened First

3
4

Amendment retaliation claims are granted in part, and denied in part, as follows:

5

a. Plaintiff’s “retaliatory handcuffing claim” is dismissed without prejudice.

6

b. Plaintiff’s “inmate-enemy retaliation claim” shall proceed in this action, against

7

defendants Price and Chivarria, together with the other claims previously found potentially

8

cognizable in this action (see findings and recommendations filed March 22, 2012 at ECF No.

9

35).

10

3. Plaintiff’s request to reinstate his state law claims is denied.

11

4. Plaintiff may proceed on his First Amended Complaint, or on a newly-filed Second

12

Amended Complaint, no more than twenty (20) pages in length, consistent with the parameters

13

previously set forth (see findings and recommendations filed January 22, 2014, ECF No. 45 at 18

14

n.8).

15

5. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall either inform the court

16

he intends to proceed on his First Amended Complaint, or file and serve a Second Amended

17

Complaint.

18

Dated: February 24, 2014

19
20
21
22
23

walk0569.801

24
25
26
27
28
2