-SMS (PC) Hollis v. York et al, No. 1:2009cv00463 - Document 39 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting In Part And Modifying In Part FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Nos. 25 , 31 , 35 ), signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/31/2011. It is ORDERED that: The findings and recommendation, issued October 15, 2010 is adopted in part and modified in part as reflected herein; Plaintiff's first amended complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice. It is so ORDERED.(Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
-SMS (PC) Hollis v. York et al Doc. 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHAEL EUGENE HOLLIS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00463-OWW-SMS ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND MODIFYING IN PART FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ( Nos. 25, 31, 35) v. RUSSELL YORK, et al., Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Michael Eugene Hollis (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 18 Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of 19 civil rights by federal actors. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 15, 2010, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and 22 issued a findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and severing 23 Plaintiff’s cognizable claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff filed a timely objection on January 18, 24 2011. The objection has been considered. In his objection Plaintiff states that Defendants should 25 not be allowed to be relieved of liability. However, Plaintiff’s conclusory statements that Defendants 26 were aware of deprivations, without any facts indicating how Defendants were aware, are insufficient 27 to state a cognizable claim. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Requiring a plaintiff to properly plead a 28 complaint does not relieve a defendant of liability. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 2 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned 3 finds the the Magistrate Judge’s substantive analysis of Plaintiff’s claims is correct. 4 As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the cognizable claims stated in Plaintiff’s first amended 5 complaint are improperly joined. For example, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Laird did not 6 arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions as any of Plaintiff’s other 7 unrelated claims. Although Plaintiff’s “Correctional/Officer Harassment/Retaliation” claim and his 8 “Retaliatory Abuse of the Disciplinary Process” claim could be joined in a single lawsuit under Rule 9 18 because they involve the same group of Defendants, those two sets of claims cannot be joined 10 with any other unrelated claims. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed, without prejudice 11 to Plaintiff filing separate actions for the cognizable claims against the separately alleged responsible 12 parties in accordance with Rule 18. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. 15 16 The findings and recommendation, issued October 15, 2010, is adopted in part and modified in part as reflected herein; 2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice.IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Emm0d6Dated: 18 March 31, 2011 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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.