(PC) Reyna v. Kings County Jail et al, No. 1:2020cv00447 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations in Full; ORDER for this Case to Proceed Only with Plaintiff's Retaliation Claims Against Defendants Valdez, Putnam, and Alcala; ORDER Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 06/10/2022. Case is referred back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN REYNA, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 1:20-cv-00447-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL (ECF No. 16.) vs. KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. 17 ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED ONLY WITH PLAINTIFF’S RETALIATION CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS VALDEZ, PUTNAM, AND ALCALA ORDER DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 18 19 John Reyna (“Plaintiff”) is a Kings County Jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 21 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On March 10, 2022, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending 23 that this action proceed only against defendants Valdez, Putnam, and Alcala for retaliation in 24 violation of the First Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from 25 this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff was provided an 26 opportunity to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations within fourteen days. To 27 date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the Findings and 28 Recommendations. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 6 1. 7 8 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on March 10, 2022, are ADOPTED in full; 2. 9 This action now proceeds with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on November 19, 2021, against defendants Valdez, Putnam, and Alcala for 10 retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 11 3. All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action; 12 4. Defendants Kings County Jail and Syndre (Mailroom Staff) are dismissed from 13 this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which 14 relief may be granted against him; 15 5. Plaintiff’s claims for violation of due process, religious freedom under the First 16 Amendment, and violation of RLUIPA are dismissed from this action based on 17 Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; and 18 19 6. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 10, 2022 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.