(PC) Houston v. Schwarzenegger et al, No. 1:2006cv01318 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Wunderlich on 4/3/09: Recommending certain claims be DISMISSED; Defendants A. Schwarzenegger, J. Woodford, A.K. Scribner, Derral Adams, Lonnie Watson, Lydia Hense, C. Gardenal, D. Or tiz, V. Yamamota, D. Sheppard-Brooks, J. Jones, Janice Stuter, Ron Rife, G. Goodard, Teresa Bruce, D. Hukill, J. Burleson, and B. Lockyer be dismissed; Defendant XXXXX be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims against him; Objections to F&R due by 5/6/2009. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
(PC) Houston v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROYCE KEVIN HOUSTON, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01318-AWI-WMW PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. A. SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 23, 2009, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s 18 November 17, 2006, amended complaint states cognizable claims against Defendant Rosenthal for 19 a violation of the First Amendment, but does not state a cognizable claim against any of the 20 remaining Defendant. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the 21 Court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. On March 2, 2009, 22 Plaintiff notified the Court that he does not wish to amend and is willing to proceed on the claims 23 found cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, this Findings and Recommendations now issues. See 24 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies 25 and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim). 26 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 27 1. 28 The following claims be dismissed: Supervisory liability; claims against appeals reviewers; 14th Amendment Due Process; 8th Amendment; 6th Amendment; claims 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1985; claims for prospective relief. 2. Defendants A. Schwarzenegger, J. Woodford, A. K. Scribner, Derral Adams; Lonnie 3 Watson, Lydia Hense, C. Gardenal, D. Ortiz, V. Yamamota, D. Sheppard-Brooks, J. 4 Jones, Janice Stuter, Ron Rife, G. Goodard, Teresa Bruce, D. Hukill, J. Burleson, and 5 B. Lockyer be dismissed. 6 7 8 3. Defendant XXXXX be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against him. 9 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 11 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 12 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 13 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 14 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 15 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: April 3, 2009 mmkd34 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 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.