(PC) Collier v. Dreher, et al., No. 1:2011cv00270 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this Action Proceed Only Against Defendants Dreher and Recommending that all Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed re 1 Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/28/12. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections, If Any, Due In 15 Days. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Collier v. Dreher, et al. Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIAM H. COLLIER, JR., 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00270-LJO-GBC (PC) Plaintiff, v. J. DREHER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS DREHER AND RECOMMENDING THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 15 DAYS _____________________________________/ 15 16 Plaintiff William H. Collier, Jr. is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 18 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. Plaintiff 19 filed the complaint on February 14, 2011. Doc. 1. On October 26, 2012, the Court screened 20 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that stated a 21 cognizable Due Process claim and access to courts claim against Defendant J. Dreher stemming from 22 intentionally falsifying a document relied upon in determining the length of Plaintiff’s prison 23 sentence and preventing Plaintiff to mail an objection in another action which led to the action being 24 dismissed. Doc. 13. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either address the shortcomings of the complaint 25 through amendment or to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims. 26 Doc. 13. On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff stated that he did not wish to file an amended complaint 27 and gave notice of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims against Defendant J. Dreher. 28 Doc. 14. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. 3 This action proceed against Defendant J. Dreher on Due Process claim and access to courts claims; and 4 2. All remaining claims and Defendants: 1) H.S. Rios, Jr. (Warden at USPA); 2) 5 Regional Director; 3) Paul R. A. Howard (Parole Commission); and 4) General 6 Counsel, be dismissed from this action. 7 8 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15) 10 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 11 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 12 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 13 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 14 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: 0jh02o November 28, 2012 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
