(PC) Ruiz v. Clark et al, No. 1:2020cv00893 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/3/2020. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GEORGE RUIZ, 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-00893-AWI-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (DOC. NO. 11) KEN CLARK, et al., Defendants. 12 13 George Ruiz (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 14 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 15 States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 16 On September 23, 2020, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 17 recommendations, recommending “that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for 18 Plaintiff’s claims against (1) Defendants Ken Clark, D. Baughman, S. Alfaro, G. Jaime, J. 19 Gallaghar and P. Llamas for (a) unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the 20 Eighth Amendment and (b) discriminatory treatment on account of Plaintiff’s race in violation 21 of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to being placed on a 22 lockdown, a modified program, and reducing his privileges, and (2) Defendants Ken Clark, D. 23 Baughman, and J. Gallaghar for preferentially treating black inmates classified as STG Bloods 24 and STG Crips as compared to Plaintiff on account of his race in violation of the Equal 25 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Doc. No. 11 at p. 2). 26 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 27 recommendations. The deadline for filing objections has passed, and plaintiff has not filed 28 objections to the findings and recommendations. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. 5 6 7 8 9 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September 23, 2020, are ADOPTED in full; 2. All claims and defendants are dismissed, except for plaintiff’s claims against (1) Defendants Ken Clark, D. Baughman, S. Alfaro, G. Jaime, J. Gallaghar and P. 10 Llamas for (a) unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the 11 Eighth Amendment and (b) discriminatory treatment on account of Plaintiff’s 12 race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 13 with respect to being placed on a lockdown, a modified program, and reducing 14 his privileges, and (2) Defendants Ken Clark, D. Baughman, and J. Gallaghar 15 for preferentially treating black inmates classified as STG Bloods and STG 16 Crips as compared to Plaintiff on account of his race in violation of the Equal 17 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and 18 19 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 3, 2020 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.