Valencia v. Kokor

Filing 113

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 112 Request for Screening, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/27/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DANIEL G. VALENCIA,
Plaintiff,

9

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR SCREENING

v.

10
11

Case No. 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS (PC)

(ECF No. 112)
WINFRED KOKOR, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 5, 2015, the Court screened
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and determined that it stated cognizable Eighth
Amendment claims for inadequate medical care against Defendants Sunduram and
Kokor. (ECF No. 55.) Plaintiff was given the option to proceed on these claims alone or
to amend again. Plaintiff chose to proceed. (ECF No. 57.) His non-cognizable claims
were dismissed. (ECF No. 61.)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant Kokor answered the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 70.)
Defendant Sunduram filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 71.) As to the motion to
dismiss, the Court concluded that the claims as pled were cognizable, but surmised that
Plaintiff could nonetheless allege additional facts in support of his claims. (See ECF
Nos. 88, 94.) Accordingly, Defendant Sunduram’s motion to dismiss was granted, the
complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and Plaintiff again was given leave to amend.
(Id.)

1

Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on October 18, 2016. On December

2 16, 2016, the Court screened the third amended complaint and dismissed it because it
3 was not complete in itself. (ECF No. 110.) Plaintiff was given one final opportunity to
4 amend. He filed his fourth amended complaint on January 17, 2017. (ECF No. 111.)
5 Defendants request that the Court screen Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint in
6 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
7

Defendants’ request is HEREBY GRANTED. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s

8 fourth amended complaint in due course. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s
9 amended complaint within thirty days of the order adopting the Court’s screening order,
10 if any claims are found to be cognizable.
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 27, 2017

/s/

14

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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