The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE
ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT ARROYO FROM THIS ACTION
Bryan Ransom ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on January 21, 2005. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the amended complaint filed by Plaintiff on August 30, 2005, against more than thirty named defendants, on Plaintiff's claims for violation of his rights under the United States Constitution.*fn1 (Doc. 8.)
On October 29, 2009, defendants Burreul, Case, Vance, Cary, Tennison, Pliler, Arroyo, Bremner, Diaz, Jones, Cheema, Duran, Hulsey, Mayo, Pina, Santo, McDowell, and Meske ("Defendants") filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 213.) On March 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 224.)
II. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is made on the basis that the undisputed evidence shows the following:
(1) Plaintiff cannot state a federal claim of denial of access to the courts against defendants Burruel, Case, Vance, Cary, Tennison, and Pliler for the transpacking of Plaintiff's property in 2001 because (a) Plaintiff cannot show an actual injury from that event, and (b) Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies;
(2) Plaintiff cannot state a federal claim of retaliation under § 1983 against defendant G. Arroyo for destruction of Plaintiff's property in violation of a temporary restraining order issued by the Greenwood court because (a) the order was void ab initio, and (b) the doctrine of judicial estoppel bars the claim;
(3) Plaintiff cannot proceed upon state law claims against defendants Bremner, Diaz, Jones, Cheema, Duran, Hulsey, Mayo, Pina, Santo, McDowell, and Meske for negligence, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress because Plaintiff failed to comply with the government claim presentation requirement.
Defendants also move to dismiss the eighteen named Defendants from this action as a result of the dismissal of these claims.
Plaintiff's statement of non-opposition states in its entirety: "[U]pon review of Defendants['] Oct. 29, 2009 Motion for Summary Judgment[,] Plaintiff elects not to oppose their Motion in order to channel ...