(PC) Turner v. Sullivan et al, No. 1:2017cv01737 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff Proceed on Cognizable Claims and that Non-Cognizable Claims be Dismissed with Leave to Amend signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/18/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEVEN DEON TURNER, JR., 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 WILLIAM J. SULLIVAN, et al., 10 Defendants. Case No. 1:17-cv-01737-AWI-JDP ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AND THAT NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS BE DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 16.) 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff Steven Deon Turner, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 16 17 18 19 20 21 On September 11, 2016, findings and recommendations were entered. (ECF No. 16.) The Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff has stated claims against defendants Busby, Johnson, Gray, and Gomez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and for conspiracy,1 but that Plaintiff failed to state claims against defendants Sullivan, Burgess, and Butler. (ECF No. 16.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that claims against these defendants be dismissed with leave to amend. (Id.) 22 23 Plaintiff file objections to the findings and recommendations on September 24, 2018. (ECF No. 24) Plaintiff also lodged a first amended complaint the same day. 24 25 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 27 28 1 The Magistrate Judge authorized service of the complaint as to these defendants. (ECF No. 17.) 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 4 11, 2016 (ECF No. 16) are adopted in full; 2. 5 This action now proceeds on the following two sets of claims: a. claims against defendants Busby, Johnson, Gray and Gomez for retaliation in 6 violation of the First Amendment; 7 b. claims against defendants Busby, Johnson, Gray and Gomez for conspiracy to violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights; 8 9 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on September 3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Sullivan for unconstitutional conditions of 10 confinement and the claims against Defendants Burgess and Butler are dismissed 11 without prejudice; 12 4. 13 14 15 Plaintiff’s lodged proposed First Amended Complaint is considered FILED as of the date of this order; 5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including the screening of the First Amended Complaint. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 18, 2018 SENIOR 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.