(PC)Yandell v. Washington et al

Filing 63

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/9/24 ADOPTING in full 59 Findings and Recommendations. This action shall proceed on plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendants Jones, Luke, and Saika, plaintiff& #039;s First Amendment claim against defendants Jones and Luke, and plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise claim against defendant Toliver. All other claims brought by plaintiff in this action are dismissed. Defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and Pfau are DISMISSED as defendants in this action. This action is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD DEAN YANDELL, 12 13 14 No. 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC (PC) Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 59) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Ronald Dean Yandell was, at the time of filing, a federal pretrial detainee 19 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 20 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302. 22 On April 1, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s third amended 23 complaint and found that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a Fourteenth Amendment due process 24 claim against defendants Jones, Luke, and Saika based on plaintiff’s placement in total separation 25 (“TSEP”), a First Amendment claim against defendants Jones and Luke for failing to provide a 26 confidential attorney-client visitation area, and a First Amendment free exercise claim against 27 defendant Toliver for failing to provide plaintiff with a vegetarian diet consistent with his 28 Buddhist beliefs. (Doc. No. 59 at 3.) However, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff had 1 1 failed to state any cognizable claims against the remaining defendants. (Id.) Accordingly, on 2 April 1, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending 3 that this action proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable and that all other claims and 4 defendants be dismissed from this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim 5 against them. (Id. at 5.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 6 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 7 service. (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has passed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 10 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. 13 The findings and recommendations issued on April 1, 2024 (Doc. No. 59) are adopted in full; 14 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim 15 against defendants Jones, Luke, and Saika, plaintiff’s First Amendment claim 16 against defendants Jones and Luke, and plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise 17 claim against defendant Toliver; 18 3. All other claims brought by plaintiff in this action are dismissed; 19 4. Defendants McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and Pfau are dismissed as defendants in 20 this action; 21 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendants 22 McKrasie, Hampton, Schaller, and Pfau have been terminated from this action; 23 and 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 6. 2 proceedings consistent with this order. 3 4 5 6 This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 9, 2024 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?