-KJN (PC) Jayne v. Van Buskirk, et al., No. 2:2011cv01448 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/16/2011 RECOMMENDING that those claims raised in plaintiff's amended complaint found not potentially colorable in the separately issued order be dismissed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 21 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-KJN (PC) Jayne v. Van Buskirk, et al. Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MIKE JAYNE, 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, No. 2: 11-cv-1448 GEB KJN P vs. DONALD VAN BUSKIRK, et al., Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The undersigned has separately issued a lengthy order addressing 18 the merits of plaintiff’s amended complaint filed June 28, 2011. In this order, the undersigned 19 found that the following claims stated potentially colorable claims for relief: 1) cell searches 20 conducted allegedly based on retaliation and to harass plaintiff against defendants Buskirk, 21 Champagne, Page, Woellert; 2) defendant Woellert allegedly refused to allow plaintiff to wash 22 off pepper spray for several hours; 3) alleged denial of outdoor exercise while in ad seg by 23 defendants Buskirk and Solus; 4) conditions of ad seg were allegedly unconstitutional against 24 defendants Buskirk and Solus: 5) alleged denial of medical care for sciatica against defendants 25 McComb and Austin; 6) alleged denial of access to Jewish reading material and Rabbi and 26 alleged denial of request to wear Star of David in violation of the First Amendment and RLUIPA 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 against defendant Solus; 7) alleged denial of right to watch television in violation of the Equal 2 Protection Clause against defendant Solus. 3 In the separately issued order, the undersigned addressed why the remaining 4 claims did not state potentially colorable claims for relief. In particular, the undersigned found 5 that the following claims were not potentially colorable: 1) conspiracy claims against defendant 6 Hendershot, Anderson, Mitchell, Ashmun, Ryan, Champagne and Mitchell; 2) conspiracy claims 7 against defendants Solus and Ashmus based on their alleged preparation of memos; 3) conspiracy 8 claims against defendants Buskirk and Champagne based on their drafting of policies; 4) alleged 9 failure of defendants Hansen and Bosenko to investigate the conspiracy; 5) alleged failure of 10 defendants Cierly and Skenn to conduct criminal investigation; 6) claim that defendants Page, 11 Champagne and Short allegedly attempted to frame plaintiff on criminal charges and plant 12 informants; 7) claim that defendant Short allegedly falsely claimed that plaintiff had a hit list; 8) 13 claim that defendants Champagne, Mitchell, Buskirk and Abernathy allegedly violated the 14 Federal Wiretap Act and California Penal Code sections 636(a) and 132; 9) claim that defendant 15 Page used allegedly excessive force; 10) claim that defendant Church allegedly retaliated against 16 plaintiff; 11) claim that defendants Solis and Champagne allegedly punished plaintiff for rules 17 violations and denied plaintiff visits; 12) claim that defendant Champagne allegedly gave 18 plaintiff a thin mattress; 13) claim that defendants Solus and Woellert allegedly tampered with 19 plaintiff’s mail; 14) claim that defendant Solus allegedly violated the ADA by failing to provide 20 rehabilitative services; 15) claim that defendants Solus and Buskirk allegedly violated plaintiff’s 21 right to access the court and California Penal Code section 832.5; 16) claim that plaintiff did not 22 receive dessert; 17) claim that defendant Solus allegedly kept a debt on his canteen; 17) claim 23 that defendants Cierly and Skenn allegedly refused to investigate his complaints of conspiracy; 24 18) claim that defendant Brown allegedly refused to investigate his complaints; 19) claim that 25 defendants Campbell and Hammonds allegedly conspired to play back his attorney-client 26 telephone calls; 20) all claims against defendants Abney and Bodner because plaintiff has failed 2 1 to link them to any alleged deprivation. 2 3 For the reasons stated in that order, the undersigned now recommends dismissal of those claims. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that those claims raised in 5 plaintiff’s amended complaint found not potentially colorable in the separately issued order be 6 dismissed. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 9 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 10 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 11 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 12 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 13 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: November 16, 2011 15 16 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 jayne1448.ame 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.
