Summary
This United States District Court order adopts in part a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations regarding the plaintiff’s pro se civil rights complaint. After conducting a de novo review of the plaintiff’s timely objections, the court found that the first amended complaint states cognizable claims for First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violations against several named defendants. The court dismissed all other claims and defendants for failure to state a claim and referred the remaining matters back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's first amended complaint states a cognizable claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause against Sgt. Rivera and Cpl. Schmalls.
- Whether the remaining claims and defendants should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Holdings
- The court finds the complaint states a cognizable claim against Sgt. Rivera and Cpl. Schmalls for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
- All other claims and defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Key quotations
“The findings and recommendations issued on October 2, 2024, Doc. 9, are adopted in part; this action shall proceed on plaintiff's first amended complaint ... for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; all other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted; this action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order.” (at 13-19)
Factual background
Cornel Jackson, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, alleges that Sgt. Rivera directed a cell search and Cpl. Schmalls executed it in retaliation for Jackson's civil rights litigation, violating the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Procedural history
The magistrate judge screened the plaintiff's first amended complaint and recommended dismissal of most claims. Plaintiff timely filed objections. The district court conducted a de novo review, adopted the findings in part, allowed retaliation claims against Sgt. Rivera and Cpl. Schmalls, and dismissed all other claims and defendants.
Remand instructions
The action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order.