(PC) Collier v. Dreher, et al., No. 1:2011cv00270 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDERED that this action proceed against Defendant: J. Dreher on due process claim and access to courts claims and all remaining claims and Defendants: H.S. Rios, Jr.(Warden at USPA); Regional Director; Paul R.A. Howard (Parole Commission) and General Counsel are DISMISSED from this action, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/18/12. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Collier v. Dreher, et al. Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIAM H. COLLIER, JR., 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00270-LJO-GBC (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. J. DREHER, et al., 13 (Doc. 15) Defendants. 14 _____________________________________/ 15 16 I. Procedural Background 17 Plaintiff William H. Collier, Jr. is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 19 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. 20 Plaintiff filed the complaint on February 14, 2011. Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 26, 22 2012, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A, and found that stated a cognizable Due Process claim and access to courts claim against 24 Defendant J. Dreher stemming from intentionally falsifying a document relied upon in determining 25 the length of Plaintiff’s prison sentence and preventing Plaintiff to mail an objection in another 26 action which led to the action being dismissed. Doc. 13. 27 The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to either address the shortcomings of the complaint 28 through amendment or to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Doc. 13. On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff stated that he did not wish to file an amended complaint 2 and gave notice of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims against Defendant J. Dreher. 3 Doc. 14. On November 28, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations 4 herein where the Magistrate Judge recommended that the action proceed against Defendant J. Dreher 5 on Due Process claim and access to courts claims and that all remaining claims and Defendants: 1) 6 H.S. Rios, Jr. (Warden at USPA); 2) Regional Director; 3) Paul R. A. Howard (Parole Commission); 7 and 4) General Counsel, be dismissed from this action. Doc. 15. Plaintiff has not filed any 8 objections. 9 II. Conclusion and Order 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 11 de novo review of this case. The Court concludes that the Findings and Recommendations are 12 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 13 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 14 1. 15 This action proceed against Defendant J. Dreher on Due Process claim and access to courts claims; and 16 2. All remaining claims and Defendants: 1) H.S. Rios, Jr. (Warden at USPA); 2) 17 Regional Director; 3) Paul R. A. Howard (Parole Commission); and 4) General 18 Counsel, are dismissed from this action. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: b9ed48 December 18, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.