(PC) Davis v. Woodford et al, No. 2:2005cv01898 - Document 77 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/24/2012 ADOPTING 71 Findings and Recommendations in full; GRANTING in part 36 Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; DISMISSING, without leave to amend, Plaintiffs due process, § 1985(2), and § 1986 claims; DISMISSING, with leave to amend, Plaintiffs retaliation claims against Meier, Barnes, Wagner, and Coe, and Plaintiffs § 1983 conspiracy claims; ORDERING Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days; VACATING the deadline for filing dispositive motions. (Michel, G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Davis v. Woodford et al Doc. 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHARLES T. DAVIS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:05-cv-1898 JAM EFB P vs. D.L. RUNNELS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On August 22, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days from the 22 date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings 23 and recommendations and defendants have filed a response thereto. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 25 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 2 proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2012, are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Dckt. 6 No. 36), is granted in part; 7 8 3. Plaintiff’s due process, § 1985(2), and § 1986 claims are dismissed without leave to amend; 9 10 4. Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Meier, Barnes, Wagner, and Coe, and plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claims are dismissed with leave to amend; 11 5. Plaintiff may, within thirty days, file a third amended complaint consistent 12 with the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations regarding the scope of leave to 13 amend; 14 6. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is vacated. 15 16 17 DATED: October 24, 2012 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
