(PC) Hammler v. Cota et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/23/2020 ADOPTING in FULL 16 Findings and Recommendations. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ALLEN HAMMLER,

11

No. 2:19-cv-1423-JAM-EFB P

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

E. COTA, et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15
16

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

17

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

18

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

19

On February 13, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

20

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

21

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

22

objections to the findings and recommendations.

23

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

24

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

25

ORDERED that:

26

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 13, 2020, are adopted in full.

27

2. Plaintiff’s “First Amendment (Substantive)” claims against defendants Cota, Burnes,

28

Mccarvel, Garza, and Rodriguez are dismissed without leave to amend.
1

1
2

3. Plaintiff’s claim that defendant Hubbard denied his substantive First Amendment
rights by issuing a false RVR against plaintiff is dismissed without leave to amend.

3

4. Plaintiff’s substantive First Amendment claims against Hubbard for preventing him

4

from speaking with a psychologist and against Tumacder are dismissed with leave to

5

amend.

6
7
8

5. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against Mccarvel, Tumacder, Garza,
and Rodriguez are dismissed with leave to amend.
6. Plaintiff’s substantive due process, procedural due process, equal protection, and

9

“deliberate indifference” claims are dismissed with leave to amend as to all defendants.

10

7. This court finds that plaintiff has, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

11

screening, stated potentially cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims against

12

defendants Cota, Burnes, Hubbard, Case, and Salcedo.

13
14

8. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial
proceedings.

15
16
17
18

DATED: March 23, 2020
/s/ John A. Mendez____________

_____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2