Solomon v. Negrete et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 7/20/11 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 6/21/11 27 are ADOPTED in full; Caresco, Bryant, Steadman, Negrete, Miner, Sheet, Cable, Mello, Heil, Grimm, Wallace, Cannon, Turner, Bonville, D avis, Foston, Hodges, Hollins, Blankmanship (or Blankenship), Gentry, Curliss, Bruitt, Doung, Nurse Franco, Jaquin, Hibbard, Heard are DISMISSED; in addition, that portion of Plaintiff's claim against defendants Torres, Norgaard and Wright regar ding being forced out of the SHU are DISMISSED. As well, Plaintiffs claims against defendants Lundy, Schuyler and Sgt. Franco, regarding a claimed lack of outdoor exercise are DISMISSED; also claims against defendant Schuyler related to a deprivation of a variety of personal property are DISMISSED. The case only proceeds as to the following: a claim of retaliation against Torres, Norgaard, Wright for placing and retaining Plaintiff in the SHU from 12/31/06 to 7/28/07, for the filing of a grievan ce against defendant Torres; a claim of inadequate medical care regarding an alleged abrupt termination of pain medication against defendant Tate; a claim of retaliation against defendant Stallcup for her alleged actions following the filing of a gri evance by Plaintiff; a claim of an Eighth Amendment violation against defendants Vasquez, Medrano and Barajas for excessive force and of retaliation, regarding a pepper-spraying incident and its aftermath, as well as a claim of retaliation against defendants Garcia, Lundy, Campbell, Sgt. Franco and Prior, regarding Plaintiff's filing complaints about being peppersprayed. Plaintiff's 6/3/11 24 Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief is DENIED without prejudice. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

VINCENTE SOLOMON,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. CIV S-10-2103 WBS GGH P

vs.
J. NEGRETE, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

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

16
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.
On June 21, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

19
20

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

21

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not

22

filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

23
24

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

25
1

26

Plaintiff’s objections, filed on July 11, 2011, appear to be directed, to the extent that can
be discerned, to the findings and recommendations filed on June 24, 2011.
1

1

ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 21, 2011, are adopted in full;

3

2. Defendants Caresco, Bryant, Steadman, Negrete, Miner, Sheet, Cable, Mello,

4

Heil, Grimm, Wallace, Cannon, Turner, Bonville, Davis, Foston, Hodges, Hollins, Blankmanship

5

(or Blankenship), Gentry, Curliss, Bruitt, Doung, Nurse Franco, Jaquin, Hibbard, Heard are

6

dismissed; in addition, that portion of plaintiff’s claim against defendants Torres, Norgaard and

7

Wright regarding being forced out of the SHU are dismissed. As well, plaintiff’s claims against

8

defendants Lundy, Schuyler and Sgt. Franco, regarding a claimed lack of outdoor exercise are

9

dismissed; also claims against defendant Schuyler related to a deprivation of a variety of

10

personal

11

property are dismissed.

12

3. The case only proceeds as to the following: a claim of retaliation against

13

Torres, Norgaard, Wright for placing and retaining plaintiff in the SHU from December 31, 2006

14

to July 28, 2007, for the filing of a grievance against defendant Torres; a claim of inadequate

15

medical care regarding an alleged abrupt termination of pain medication against defendant Tate;

16

a claim of retaliation against defendant Stallcup for her alleged actions following the filing of a

17

grievance by plaintiff; a claim of an Eighth Amendment violation against defendants Vasquez,

18

Medrano and Barajas for excessive force and of retaliation,2 regarding a pepper-spraying

19

incident and its aftermath, as well as a claim of retaliation against defendants Garcia, Lundy,

20

Campbell, Sgt. Franco and Prior, regarding plaintiff’s filing complaints about being pepper-

21

sprayed.
4. Plaintiff’s June 3, 2011 (docket # 24), request for preliminary injunctive relief

22
23

///

24

///

25
2

26

While an excessive force claim is a claim of an Eighth Amendment violation, of course,
any claim of retaliation allegation implicates the First Amendment.
2

1

///

2

///

3

is denied without prejudice.

4

DATED: July 20, 2011

5
6
7
8
9
10

/solo2103.800

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3