(PC) Patkins v. Alomari et al, No. 1:2014cv00674 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 15 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/6/2015. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DAVID C. PATKINS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v. 12 Case No. 1:14-cv-00674-LJO-JLT (PC) ALOMARI, et al., (Doc. 15) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 13 Defendants. 14 Plaintiff, David C. Patkins, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 15 16 this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which he filed on May 7, 2014. The matter was 17 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 18 302. 19 On September 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations 20 which was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to the parties that objections to the 21 Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on 22 September 28, 2015. Local Rule 304(b), (d). 23 In his objections, Plaintiff argues that inclusion of his retaliation claim against Defendant 24 Davis in this action along with his retaliation claims against Defendants Davies and Vargas does 25 not violate Rule 18. However, Plaintiff fails to show any relation between his claim against 26 Defendant Davis to his claims against Defendants Davies and Vargas -- other than that Defendant 27 Davis is their supervisor -- which is insufficient for relation under Rule 18. 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 1 1 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 2 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. the Findings and Recommendations, filed on September 4, 2015, is adopted in full; 5 2. this action is to proceed on Plaintiff's claims (Claim 1 and Claim 2) against 6 Defendants Davies and Vargas for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment 7 as stated in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) which was filed on October 8, 8 2014; 9 3. Plaintiff's claim (Claim 9) against Defendant Davis for retaliation in violation of 10 the First Amendment is dismissed without prejudice as its inclusion in this action 11 violates Rule 18; 12 4. all other claims and Defendants are dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's 13 failure to state cognizable claims under section 1983; and 14 5. this action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for directing service of process. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill October 6, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
