(PC) Gann v. Valley State Prison et al, No. 1:2019cv01797 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 29 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/07/2021. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-01797-DAD-GSA (PC) Plaintiff, v. VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 29) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Nathaniel Marcus Gann is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On May 3, 2021, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this 22 action proceed only against defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., Dining Hall Officer Paez, and 23 Culinary Staff Members Anguiano, Chapas, Lucero, Marquez, Cruz, and Moosebaur for violation 24 of RLUIPA, violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, and adverse conditions of 25 confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, 26 Jr., and Moosebaur for failure to protect plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 27 against defendant Moosebaur for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and that all 28 other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state a 1 1 claim. (Doc. No. 29.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided 2 notice that any objections must be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) No objections have been filed 3 to date, and the time to do so has passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 5 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 6 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. This action now proceeds as follows: 9 a. Against defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., Dining Hall Officer Paez, and 10 Culinary Staff Members Anguiano, Chapas, Lucero, Marquez, Cruz, and 11 Moosebaur for violation of RLUIPA, violation of the First Amendment Free 12 Exercise Clause, and adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth 13 Amendment; 14 b. Against defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., and Moosebaur for failure to 15 protect plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 16 c. Against defendant Moosebaur for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 17 2. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; 18 3. Plaintiff’s claims for violation of equal protection, improper inmate appeals process, 19 and conspiracy are dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any 20 claims upon which relief may be granted; 21 4. Defendants CDCR, John Doe #1 (Headquarter Community Resource Manager), John 22 Doe #2 (Associate Director of the Division of Adult Institutions), John Doe #3 (CDCR 23 Departmental Food Administrator), J. Knight (Appeals Examiner), T. Thornton 24 (Appeals Analyst, VSP), Timothy Anderson (inmate), John Doe #4 (inmate), Keene 25 (Housing Unit Officer), Avila-Gonzalez (Correctional Officer), Sergeant Clements, 26 Sergeant Santoya, C. Hernandez (Food Manager), Mohktar (Food Manager), and 27 Hayman (Culinary Supervisor Cook II) are dismissed from this action based on 28 plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which relief may be granted; 2 1 2 3 4 and 5. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 7, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3