Ahmed v. Ringler et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/10/2015 ADOPTING IN FULL 26 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 17 Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff's failure to state a claim; DENYING 17 Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff' s request for punitive damages; GRANTING 17 Motion to Dismiss as to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity re Plaintiff's retaliation claims based on his verbal complaint, but DENYING 17 Motion to Dismiss as to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity re Plaintiff's retaliation claims based on his filing of formal inmate grievances; DISMISSING Defendant A. Scotland from this action; ORDERING Defendant S. Ringler to answer the plaintiff's remaining claim within thirty days. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ABDIKIDAR AHMED,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1050 MCE DAD P

v.

ORDER

S. RINGLER et al.,

15

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 February 5, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

20
21

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

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.
The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

24
25

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

26

ORDERED that:

27

/////

28

/////
1

1
2
3
4

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 5, 2015 (ECF No. 26), are
ADOPTED in full;
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part as follows:

5
6

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim is
DENIED;

7
8

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is
DENIED; and

9

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the affirmative defense of qualified

10

immunity is GRANTED as to plaintiff’s retaliation claims based on plaintiff’s verbal

11

complaint but DENIED as to plaintiff’s retaliation claims based on his filing of formal

12

inmate grievances.

13

2. Defendant Scotland is DISMISSED from this action.

14

3. Within thirty days of the date of this order, defendant Ringler shall file an answer to

15

plaintiff’s remaining claim that the defendant conducted unnecessary cell searches of his living

16

area on November 21, 2012, and May 7, 2013, in retaliation for plaintiff filing formal grievances

17

against him.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2015

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2