(PC) Morgan v. Valley State Prison et al, No. 1:2020cv00029 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/12/2021. Anguiano, Chapas, Lucero, Marquez, Cruz and Moosebaur added. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW WILKE MORGAN, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:20-cv-00029-DAD-GSA (PC) Plaintiff, v. VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 21) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Matthew Wilke Morgan 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). 21 On July 13, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order finding that 22 plaintiff stated the following cognizable claims: (1) claims for violation of RLUIPA, violation of 23 the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, and adverse conditions of confinement in violation of 24 the Eighth Amendment against defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., Dining Hall Officer Paez, 25 and Culinary Staff Members Anguiano, Chapas, Lucero, Marquez, Cruz, and Moosebaur; (2) a 26 claim for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendant Warden 27 Raythel Fisher, Jr.; and (3) a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against 28 defendant Moosebaur. (Doc. No. 16 at 38–39.) The screening order was served on plaintiff and 1 1 provided thirty (30) days for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint curing the noted 2 deficiencies with respect to his claims found not to be cognizable or to notify the court of his 3 willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order. (Id. at 4 39.) On August 20, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (Doc. 5 No. 20.) 6 Accordingly, on August 27, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 7 recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only on plaintiff’s cognizable claims. 8 (Doc. No. 21.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 9 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the 10 date of service. (Id. at 4) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been 11 filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 13 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 14 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 15 Accordingly, 16 1. 17 18 The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on August 27, 2021 (Doc. No. 21) are adopted in full; 2. This action now proceeds only on plaintiff’s following cognizable claims in the 19 First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10): 20 a. Claims for violation of RLUIPA, violation of the First Amendment Free 21 Exercise Clause, and adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the 22 Eighth Amendment against defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr., Dining 23 Hall Officer Paez, and Culinary Staff Members Anguiano, Chapas, Lucero, 24 Marquez, Cruz, and Moosebaur; 25 b. 26 27 28 A claim for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendant Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr.; and c. A claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against defendant Moosebaur; 2 1 3. 2 All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action: a. Plaintiff’s claims based upon an allegedly improper inmate appeals 3 process, violation of equal protection, conspiracy, and verbal threats are 4 dismissed from this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon 5 which relief may be granted; 6 b. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed from this action based on his 7 failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted, without 8 prejudice to plaintiff bringing the state law claims in state court; 9 c. Defendants Valley State Prison, CDCR, John Doe #1 (Headquarter 10 Community Resource Manager), John Doe #2 (Associate Director of the 11 Division of Adult Institutions), John Doe #3 (CDCR Departmental Food 12 Administrator), J. Knight (Appeals Examiner), T. Thornton (Appeals 13 Analyst, VSP), Timothy Anderson (inmate), John Doe #4 (inmate), Keene 14 (Housing Unit Officer), Avila-Gonzalez (Correctional Officer), Sergeant 15 Clements, Sergeant Santoya, C. Hernandez (Food Manager), Mohktar 16 (Food Manager), and Hayman (Culinary Supervisor Cook II), are 17 dismissed from this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state any claims 18 against them upon which relief may be granted; and 19 4. 20 21 22 This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 12, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
