-GGH (PC) Solomon v. Negrete et al, No. 2:2010cv02103 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 7/20/11 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 6/21/11 27 are ADOPTED in full; Caresco, Bryant, Steadman, Negrete, Miner, Sheet, Cable, Mello, Heil, Grimm, Wallace, Cannon, Turner, Bonville, D avis, Foston, Hodges, Hollins, Blankmanship (or Blankenship), Gentry, Curliss, Bruitt, Doung, Nurse Franco, Jaquin, Hibbard, Heard are DISMISSED; in addition, that portion of Plaintiff's claim against defendants Torres, Norgaard and Wright regar ding being forced out of the SHU are DISMISSED. As well, Plaintiffs claims against defendants Lundy, Schuyler and Sgt. Franco, regarding a claimed lack of outdoor exercise are DISMISSED; also claims against defendant Schuyler related to a deprivation of a variety of personal property are DISMISSED. The case only proceeds as to the following: a claim of retaliation against Torres, Norgaard, Wright for placing and retaining Plaintiff in the SHU from 12/31/06 to 7/28/07, for the filing of a grievan ce against defendant Torres; a claim of inadequate medical care regarding an alleged abrupt termination of pain medication against defendant Tate; a claim of retaliation against defendant Stallcup for her alleged actions following the filing of a gri evance by Plaintiff; a claim of an Eighth Amendment violation against defendants Vasquez, Medrano and Barajas for excessive force and of retaliation, regarding a pepper-spraying incident and its aftermath, as well as a claim of retaliation against defendants Garcia, Lundy, Campbell, Sgt. Franco and Prior, regarding Plaintiff's filing complaints about being peppersprayed. Plaintiff's 6/3/11 24 Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief is DENIED without prejudice. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
-GGH (PC) Solomon v. Negrete et al Doc. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VINCENTE SOLOMON, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 No. CIV S-10-2103 WBS GGH P vs. J. NEGRETE, et al., Defendants. 14 ORDER / 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 16 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. On June 21, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 19 20 herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections 21 to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not 22 filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 23 24 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 25 1 26 Plaintiff’s objections, filed on July 11, 2011, appear to be directed, to the extent that can be discerned, to the findings and recommendations filed on June 24, 2011. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 21, 2011, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants Caresco, Bryant, Steadman, Negrete, Miner, Sheet, Cable, Mello, 4 Heil, Grimm, Wallace, Cannon, Turner, Bonville, Davis, Foston, Hodges, Hollins, Blankmanship 5 (or Blankenship), Gentry, Curliss, Bruitt, Doung, Nurse Franco, Jaquin, Hibbard, Heard are 6 dismissed; in addition, that portion of plaintiff’s claim against defendants Torres, Norgaard and 7 Wright regarding being forced out of the SHU are dismissed. As well, plaintiff’s claims against 8 defendants Lundy, Schuyler and Sgt. Franco, regarding a claimed lack of outdoor exercise are 9 dismissed; also claims against defendant Schuyler related to a deprivation of a variety of 10 personal 11 property are dismissed. 12 3. The case only proceeds as to the following: a claim of retaliation against 13 Torres, Norgaard, Wright for placing and retaining plaintiff in the SHU from December 31, 2006 14 to July 28, 2007, for the filing of a grievance against defendant Torres; a claim of inadequate 15 medical care regarding an alleged abrupt termination of pain medication against defendant Tate; 16 a claim of retaliation against defendant Stallcup for her alleged actions following the filing of a 17 grievance by plaintiff; a claim of an Eighth Amendment violation against defendants Vasquez, 18 Medrano and Barajas for excessive force and of retaliation,2 regarding a pepper-spraying 19 incident and its aftermath, as well as a claim of retaliation against defendants Garcia, Lundy, 20 Campbell, Sgt. Franco and Prior, regarding plaintiff’s filing complaints about being pepper- 21 sprayed. 4. Plaintiff’s June 3, 2011 (docket # 24), request for preliminary injunctive relief 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 2 26 While an excessive force claim is a claim of an Eighth Amendment violation, of course, any claim of retaliation allegation implicates the First Amendment. 2 1 /// 2 /// 3 is denied without prejudice. 4 DATED: July 20, 2011 5 6 7 8 9 10 /solo2103.800 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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.