(PC) Contreraz v. Adams, et al, No. 1:2004cv06039 - Document 81 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 80 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 44 ; ORDER DISMISSING Certain First Amendment Claims from this action, based on Plaintiff's Failure to Exhaust Remedies; ORDER DISMISSING DEF ENDANT HETEBRINK from this action, based on Plaintiff's Failure to Exhaust Remedies; ORDER for this Case to Proceed ONLY Against DEFENDANTS RAYMOND and ADAMS on Plaintiff's First Amendment Claims Concerning Inmate Grooming Standards, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 05/01/2012. Darrow Hetebrink terminated (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Contreraz v. Adams, et al Doc. 81 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 QUETZAL CONTRERAZ, 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11 D. ADAMS, et al., 12 13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 80.) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 44.) ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIMS FROM THIS ACTION, BASED ON PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO EXHAUST REMEDIES 14 15 16 1:04-cv-06039-LJO-GSA-PC Defendants. 17 ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT HETEBRINK FROM THIS ACTION, BASED ON PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO EXHAUST REMEDIES 18 ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS RAYMOND AND ADAMS, ON PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIMS CONCERNING INMATE GROOMING STANDARDS 19 20 21 _____________________________/ 22 23 Quetzal Contreraz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 24 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 25 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 26 On March 21, 2012, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that defendants' 27 motion to dismiss be granted, dismissing certain claims and dismissing defendant Hetebrink from this 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 action, based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. Plaintiff was 2 provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. To 3 date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded 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 Court 5 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds 6 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 8 1. 9 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on March 21, 2012, are ADOPTED in full; 10 2. Defendants' motion to dismiss, filed on May 17, 2010, is GRANTED; 11 3. Plaintiff's claims that defendants violated his First Amendment rights when they denied 12 Plaintiff’s request for a religious diet and denied Plaintiff’s request for chapel access to 13 perform full moon rituals are DISMISSED from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure 14 to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit; 15 4. 16 Defendant Hetebrink is DISMISSED from this action, based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies for the claims against him before filing suit; 17 5. This action now proceeds only against defendants Raymond and Adams, on Plaintiff’s 18 claims for violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment based on the 19 denial of Plaintiff’s request for an exemption from the prison’s inmate grooming 20 standards for religious reasons; and 21 6. 22 The Clerk is directed to REFLECT on the court's docket the dismissal of defendant Hetebrink from this action. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: b9ed48 May 1, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.