-DLB (PC) Brady K. Armstrong v. Yates et al, No. 1:2010cv02380 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 13 and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/1/11. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
-DLB (PC) Brady K. Armstrong v. Yates et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BRADY K. ARMSTRONG, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:10-CV-02380-LJO-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS v. JAMES A. YATES, et al., 13 (DOC. 13) Defendants. 14 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff Brady K. Armstrong (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on 19 December 22, 2010. Doc. 1. 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 June 30, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was 22 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and 23 Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Doc. 13. After receiving several 24 extensions of time, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations on October 25 17, 2011. Doc. 21. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 27 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 28 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The Court provides the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 following additional analysis. 2 Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against Defendant S. Dishman for retaliation in violation 3 of the First Amendment and deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and 4 against Defendant J. Aguerralde for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The Magistrate 5 Judge found, and the undersigned agrees, that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant S. Dishman and 6 J. Aguerralde arise from a different transaction or occurrence and belong in different cases. On 7 September 1, 2011, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed against Defendant S. Dishman 8 in this action. Doc. 19. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant J. Aguerralde will be dismissed without 9 prejudice to refiling in a new action. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 30, 2011, is adopted in full; 12 2. Plaintiff’s claims which occurred in 2006 are DISMISSED pursuant to res judicata 13 and Defendants Yates, Trimble, Davis, Ferro, Hansen, Griffin, Gastelum, Stone, 14 Galaviz, Petrick, Mattingly, Shannon, Reeves, Ladd, and Grannis are dismissed from 15 this action; 16 3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Martinez, Davi, Ybarra, Spears, Montano, 17 Perry, Meyst, Ramos, and Kanu are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state 18 a claim against them; 19 4. 20 Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant J. Aguerralde for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment is dismissed without prejudice; and 21 5. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant S. Dishman for retaliation 22 in violation of the First Amendment and deliberate indifference in violation of the 23 Eighth Amendment. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: b9ed48 November 1, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.