(PC) Hollis v. High Desert State Prison, No. 2:2008cv02810 - Document 98 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/10/10 ORDERING that the 89 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Deft's 60 Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Plft has exhausted his claim re the HDSP-07-03973 grievance; Pltf has exhausted his claim re the HDSP-C-08-1853 grievance; Defts' motion to dismiss the remaining claims is granted; Deft's Speers, Wrigley, Flaherty, Pena, Medina, Zollo, Clark, Cheney, Nason, Waterman, Swingle , Acquavia, and Dezember are dismissed from this action. Defts' 3/17/10 Motion to Dismiss deft Audette is denied. Defts Koller, Plainer, Ingrewson, Audette, Prater, Shaver, and Koenig shall file a responsive pleading within 21 days from the filing date of this order. (Owen, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Hollis v. High Desert State Prison Doc. 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. ROBIN DEZEMBER, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. 2:08-cv-2810 GEB KJN P ORDER / 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 October 19, 2010, 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 twenty-one days. 22 Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 19, 2010, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ March 17, 2010 motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 60) is granted in part 4 and denied in part as follows: 5 a. Defendants concede plaintiff has exhausted his claims based on 6 grievance HDSP-07-03973; Defendants Koller, Plainer, Ingrewson and Audette are directed to 7 file a responsive pleading to these claims; 8 9 b. By grievance HDSP-C-08-1853, plaintiff has exhausted his claim that defendants Prater, Shaver and Koenig intentionally interfered with his prescribed medical 10 treatment by denying his prescribed pillow and mattress from June 2008, through August 11, 11 2008. Defendants Prater, Shaver, and Koenig are required to file a responsive pleading to 12 this claim. 13 c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s remaining claims as 14 unexhausted are granted. Because these remaining claims are unexhausted, defendants Speers, 15 Wrigley, Flaherty, Pena, Medina, Zollo, Clark, Cheney, Nason, Waterman, Swingle, Acquaviva 16 and Dezember are dismissed from this action. 17 3. Defendants’ March 17, 2010 motion to dismiss defendant Audette is denied. 18 4. Defendants Koller, Plainer, Ingrewson, Audette, Prater, Shaver, and Koenig 19 shall file a responsive pleading within twenty-one days from the date on which this order is filed. 20 Dated: December 10, 2010 21 22 23 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 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.
