Estrada v. Tassey et al

Filing 90

ORDER ADOPTING 84 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Defendants' 63 and 65 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 06/17/2014. (30-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED
 STATES
 DISTRICT
 COURT

7

EASTERN
 DISTRICT
 OF
 CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

DAVID ESTRADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
GIPSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13cv00919 LJO DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
(Document 84)

16

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

Pauperis in this this civil action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013.

19

This action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation

20

of the First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for

21

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

22
23
24
25

On January 27, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 12, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

26
27
28

Defendants’ motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties
1

As the original motion is sealed, Defendants filed a redacted version of the motion on February 12, 2014.
1

1

and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. No objections

2

have been filed.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the
Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 12, 2014, are ADOPTED in full;

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Documents 63, 65) is DENIED; and

3.

Defendants SHALL FILE a responsive pleading within thirty days (30) days of
the date of service of this order.

12
13
14

SO ORDERED
Dated: June 17, 2014
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2