(PC) Plata v. Woodford et al, No. 1:2006cv01023 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 40 , ORDER For This Action To Proceed Only Against Defendants Watson, Corona, And John/Jane Doe #6, On Plaintiff's Claims For Retaliation And Failure To Protect, ORDER Dismissing Remaining Claims And Defendants For Failure To State A Claim, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/2/2010. (Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Plata v. Woodford et al Doc. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCIAL PLATA, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. WOODFORD, et al., 15 16 1:06-cv-01023-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 40.) ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS WATSON, CORONA, AND JOHN/JANE DOE #6, ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR RETALIATION AND FAILURE TO PROTECT Defendants. 17 ORDER DISMISSING REMAINING CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 18 _____________________________/ 19 20 Marcial Plata ("Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 21 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 22 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On October 15, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 24 that this action proceed only against defendants Watson, Corona, and John/Jane Doe #6, on 25 Plaintiff's claims for retaliation -- for two instances of retaliation on October 12, 2003 and December 26 19, 2003 -- and Plaintiff's claims for failure to protect Plaintiff, and that all remaining claims and 27 defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 40.) Plaintiff was 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. 2 To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and 3 recommendations. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, 5 this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 6 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 8 1. 9 10 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on October 15, 2010, are adopted in full; 2. This action now proceeds with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on 11 December 10, 2008, only against defendants Correctional Officer (“C/O”) D. 12 Watson, C/O E. Corona, and John/Jane Doe #6 for two instances of retaliation 13 -- on October 12, 2003 and December 19, 2003 – in violation of the First 14 Amendment, and for failure to protect Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth 15 Amendment; 16 3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; 17 4. Plaintiff's due process claims, claims for an inadequate inmate appeals 18 process, supervisory liability claims, and claims for failure to properly train 19 and supervise are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may 20 be granted under § 1983; and 21 5. Defendants California Department of Corrections Director Jeanne S. 22 Woodford, PVSP Warden James A. Yates, Chief Deputy Warden A. Malfi, 23 Associate Warden B. J. Hill, Associate Warden W. J. Juarez, Captain V. J. 24 Quinn-Robicheaux, Lieutenant K. R. Nash, Lieutenant V. Ramirez, Lieutenant 25 J. C. Smith, Sergeant B. Cramer, Sergeant B. Torres, C/O R. Juarez, C/O J. 26 Duty, C/O J. Lopez, C/O Silva, C/O Pasillas, C/O Guerra, C/O Walker, C/O 27 Espino, C/O D. Gonzales, C/O K. Session, C/O P. Sanchez, John/Jane Does 28 2 1 #1-5, and John/Jane Does #7-35 are dismissed from this action based on 2 Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against 3 them under § 1983; and 4 6. 5 The Clerk is directed to reflect the dismissal of all defendants except Watson, Corona, and John/Jane Doe #6 from this action on the Court's docket. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 December 2, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
