-GGH (TEMP)(PC) Walton v. Hixson, et al, No. 2:2009cv01246 - Document 34 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 31 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 02/22/11 and ORDERING that dfts' 17 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: dfts' 17 Motion to Dismiss is GR ANTED insofar as the complaint can be read to allege that dft Hixson violated plf's rights by telling him to break up his prayers, by making it not possible for plf to engage in morning prayer on one occasion, by mishandling his grievance, by op ening his legal mail, by subjecting him to verbal harassment, and by preparing false rules violation reports and to the extent that plf alleges that the RVRS of 08/04/08 and 11/27/08 were retaliatory; but the Motion is DENIED to the extent the complaint can be read to allege that dft Hixson violated plf's First Amendment rights by undertaking a series of retaliatory acts, except as noted in paragraph one; and that dfts Hixson and Hilsky violated his Eighth Amendment rights. (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-GGH (TEMP)(PC) Walton v. Hixson, et al Doc. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RONALD E. WALTON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-09-1246 GEB GGH (TEMP) P S. HIXSON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On January 19, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 22 Defendants have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 25 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 19, 2011, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 17) is granted insofar as the 4 complaint can be read to allege that defendant Hixson violated plaintiff’s rights by telling him to 5 break up his prayers, by making it not possible for plaintiff to engage in morning prayer on one 6 occasion, by mishandling his grievance, by opening his legal mail, by subjecting him to verbal 7 harassment, and by preparing false rules violation reports and to the extent that plaintiff alleges 8 that the RVRS of August 4 and November 27, 2008 were retaliatory; but 9 3. The motion is denied to the extent the complaint can be read to allege that 10 defendant Hixson violated plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by undertaking a series of 11 retaliatory acts, except as noted in paragraph one; and that defendants Hixson and Hilsky violated 12 his Eighth Amendment rights. 13 Dated: February 22, 2011 14 15 16 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 17 18 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.
