(PC) Arline v. Clark, No. 1:2007cv01097 - Document 42 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS for this Action to Proceed on Plaintiff's Claims Based Only on Two Specific Instances of Modified Programming, and Dismissing All Other Claims, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/9/2010. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 5/12/2010. (Sondheim, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Arline v. Clark Doc. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH DUANE ARLINE, JR., 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:07-cv-01097-LJO-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS BASED ONLY ON TWO SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF MODIFIED PROGRAMMING, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS (Doc. 1) v. WARDEN KEN CLARK, 15 Defendant. / 16 17 Plaintiff Keith Duane Arline, Jr. (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 19 July 27, 2007. (Doc. 1.) On March 31, 2010, the court found that plaintiff’s complaint states a 20 cognizable claim against defendant Warden Ken Clark for inadequate outdoor exercise under the 21 Eighth Amendment, with regard to two specific instances of modified programming, one beginning 22 on August 15, 2006, and the other beginning on October 20, 2006. (Doc. 40.) Plaintiff was given 23 leave to either file an amended complaint or notify the court that he is agreeable to proceeding only 24 with the claims found cognizable by the Court. On April 8, 2009, plaintiff filed written notice to the 25 court that he intends to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court. (Doc. 41.) 26 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 27 1. 28 This action proceed against defendant Warden Ken Clark for inadequate outdoor exercise under the Eighth Amendment, only with regard to two specific instances of 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 modified programming, one beginning on August 15, 2006, and the other beginning 2 on October 20, 2006; and 3 2. 4 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 6 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 7 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 8 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 9 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 10 All remaining claims be dismissed from this action. 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: 6i0kij April 9, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 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.
