(PC) Johnson v. Gonzalez et al, No. 1:2014cv01252 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS GONZALEZ AND MARTINEZ ON PLAINTIFF'S DENIAL OF ACCESS TO COURTS CLAIMS AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/31/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(PC) Johnson v. Gonzalez et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:14-cv-01252-LJO-EPG-PC AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS1 vs. (ECF No. 16) ISAAC GONZALEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS GONZALEZ AND MARTINEZ ON PLAINTIFF’S DENIAL OF ACCESS TO COURTS CLAIMS AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 19 Plaintiff Lacedric W. Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 21 22 23 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on April 22, 2016. (ECF No. 13.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 26, 2016, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, 24 25 26 recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Isaac Gonzalez and A. Martinez on Plaintiff’s claims for denial of access to courts and that all other claims and defendants be 27 1 28 This amended order is issued at Plaintiff’s request to more precisely reflect the claims found cognizable in the Second Amended Complaint. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff 2 was provided an opportunity to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations within 3 twenty days. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 5 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 6 the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 7 analysis. 8 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 9 1. 10 11 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on September 26, 2016, are ADOPTED in full; 2. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed on 12 April 22, 2016, against defendants Isaac Gonzalez and A. Martinez on Plaintiff’s 13 denial of access to court claim and related state claims; 14 3. All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action; 15 4. Plaintiff’s claim for procedural due process is DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; 16 17 5. 18 19 Defendant J. Benavides is DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against him; and, 6. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of all defendants 20 from this action on the Court's docket, except defendants Gonzalez and 21 Martinez. 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ October 31, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.