(PC) Martinez v. Ziomek et al, No. 2:2008cv00674 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/30/10 ORDERING the Findings and Recommendations 35 ADOPTED IN FULL; dfts' motion to dismiss 30 is GRANTED; dfts Williams and Smith are DISMISSED; pltf's claims are limited to those r egarding his ankle which arose between 11/11/05 and March 2008; the dismissal of dft Todd is confirmed; dfts' motion to dismiss original complaint 22 is DENIED AS MOOT; dfts Hashimoto and Ziomek are directed to file an answer within 20 days of this order. (Carlos, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Martinez v. Ziomek et al Doc. 38 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 STEVE MARTINEZ, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 No. CIV S-08-674-LKK-CMK-P vs. ORDER JOHN ZIOMEK, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 / 14 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 15 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 16 Eastern District of California local rules. 17 On March 4, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 18 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 19 objections within a specified time. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been 20 filed.1 21 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 22 supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis. As to the allegations against 23 defendant Smith, while the Magistrate Judge noted in passing that “interference with the [prison] 24 grievance process may, in certain circumstances, implicate the First Amendment,” the court 25 1 26 Plaintiff filed a request for additional time in which to file his objections. This requested was, however, denied. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 clarifies that the allegations here do not fit those circumstances. Findings and Recommendations 2 filed March 4, 2010 at 11:12-13. Plaintiff has alleged that Smith wrongfully denied grievances, 3 but he has not alleged that Smith prevented plaintiff from filing grievances in the first place, or 4 that Smith’s actions amounted to a cognizable impediment to plaintiff’s access to the courts. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 4, 2010, are adopted in full; 7 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 30) is granted; 8 3. Defendants Williams and Smith are dismissed from this action for failure to 4. Plaintiff’s claims are limited to those regarding his ankle which arose 9 state a claim; 10 11 between November 11, 2005, and March 2008; 12 5. The dismissal of defendant Todd is confirmed; 13 6. This action shall proceed against defendants Hashimoto and Ziomek only; 14 7. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint (Doc. 22) is denied as 8. Defendants Hashimoto and Ziomek are directed to file an answer within 20 15 16 17 18 moot; and days of this order. DATED: March 30, 2010. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
