-EFB (PC) Harris v. High Desert State Prison et al, No. 2:2010cv01031 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/5/2011 RECOMMENDING that pltf's claims against dfts Hull, Dillard, Turner, Cochoran, Felker, McDonald, Drieth, Grannis and Tinetti be dismissed w/out prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
-EFB (PC) Harris v. High Desert State Prison et al Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LEE EDWARD HARRIS, Plaintiff, 11 No. CIV S-10-1031 JAM EFB P vs. 12 13 HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., 14 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42 16 17 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed December 10, 2010, the court found that plaintiff had stated 18 sufficient allegations to state a claim against defendant Sisson and informed plaintiff he could 19 proceed against defendant Sisson only or file an amended complaint to attempt to state 20 cognizable claims against other defendants. The court also informed plaintiff that the court 21 would consider his decision to proceed only as to defendant Sisson as consent to the dismissal of 22 plaintiff’s defective claims against defendants Hull, Dillard, Turner, Cochoran, Felker, 23 McDonald, Drieth, Grannis and Tinetti, without prejudice. On December 20, 2010, plaintiff 24 returned documents for service against defendant Sisson. 25 //// 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against 2 defendants Hull, Dillard, Turner, Cochoran, Felker, McDonald, Drieth, Grannis and Tinetti be 3 dismissed without prejudice. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 6 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 9 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 10 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 Dated: January 5, 2011. 12 13 14 15 16 17 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.