(PC) Lamon v. Pfeiffer et al, No. 1:2020cv00896 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 24 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that this matter refer back to the Magistrate Judge for Initiation of Service of Process, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/21/2020. (Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Bennett-Beach, Velasco, Corona and Loera added) (Waddle (Lieutenant at KVSP), C. Pfeiffer (Warden of KVSP) and E. Stark (Lieutenant at KVSP) terminated) (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. C. PFEIFFER, et.al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00896-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONs (Doc. No. 24) 17 18 Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302. 21 On October 30, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s separate claims for retaliation against Defendants 23 Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, 24 Bennett-Beach, and Velasco; for failure to protect against Defendants Corona, Loera, Ramirez, Eaker, 25 Luna, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Ronquillo, Luna, Rivera-Sierra, and Clare; for a Bane Act 26 violation against Defendants Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera- 27 Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, and Velasco; and for intentional infliction of 28 1 1 emotional distress against Defendants Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, 2 Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco; and that all other 3 claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action. Doc. No. 24. The findings and 4 recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were due within 5 fourteen days. Id. No objections were filed and the time to do so has now expired. 6 In accordance with the provisions of § 636(b)(1)(C) and Eastern District of California Local 7 Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 8 file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. (Doc. No. 24), are adopted in full; 11 12 The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on October 30, 2020 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s separate claims for retaliation against Defendants 13 Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, 14 Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, and Velasco; for failure to protect against Defendants 15 Corona, Loera, Ramirez, Eaker, Luna, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Ronquillo, Luna, 16 Rivera-Sierra, and Clare; for a Bane Act violation against Defendants Corona, Loera, 17 Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, 18 Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, and Velasco; and for intentional infliction of emotional 19 distress against Defendants Corona, Loera, Jones, Moffett, Moore, Alvarez, Eaker, 20 Gonzalez, Rivera-Sierra, Ronquillo, Luna, Ramirez, Goss, Bennett-Beach, Velasco; 21 3. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed from the action; and 22 4. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for initiation of service of process. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: December 21, 2020 26 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.