(PC)Cannon v. Gallahger et al, No. 1:2018cv00666 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 42 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 21 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/1/2020. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KELVIN CANNON, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. No. 1:18-cv-00666-NONE-JDP ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS BE DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART GALLAGHER, et al., (Doc. Nos. 21, 42) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Kelvin Cannon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On September 5, 2019, defendants Vang, Torres, Flores, Gonsalves, and Wilson moved to 22 dismiss plaintiff’s claims against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 23 21.) Defendants also moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief on the grounds that 24 plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the prison where the alleged deprivations occurred. On 25 February 28, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 26 recommending that the motion to dismiss the individual claims against them brought on behalf of 27 defendants Vang, Torres, Flores, Gonsalves, and Wilson be denied, and that the defendants’ 28 motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief be granted. (Id.) Those findings and 1 1 recommendations were served on the parties, and contained notice that objections thereto were 2 due within fourteen (14) days. (Id. at 6.) No party has objected to the pending findings and 3 recommendations. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 5 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 6 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. 9 10 The findings and recommendations issued on February 28, 2020 (Doc. No. 42), are adopted in full; 2. 11 the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s individual claims against them brought on behalf of defendants Vang, Torres, Flores, Gonsalves, and Wilson is denied; 12 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief is granted; 13 4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 21) is thus granted in part and denied in 14 15 16 17 18 part; and 5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 1, 2020 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.