Valencia v. Kokor
Filing
116
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 114 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Non-Cognizable Claims; ORDER Directing Defendants to File Responsive Pleading or Motion Within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/14/2017. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DANIEL G. VALENCIA,
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
v.
WINFRED KOKOR, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE No. 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
DISMISSING NON-COGNIZABLE
CLAIMS
(ECF Nos. 111, 114)
DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSIVE
PLEADING
OR
MOTION
WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS
18
19
20
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought
21
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
22
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States
23
District Court for the Eastern District of California.
24
On February 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s fourth amended
25
complaint and found that it states a cognizable Eighth Amendment medical indifference
26
claim for damages against Defendants Kokor and Sunduram, but no other cognizable
27
claims. (ECF No. 114.) The Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations for
28
1
Plaintiff to proceed on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for damages and for
2
dismissal of the remaining claims. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 115.)
3
Defendants filed no response.
4
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has
5
conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
6
Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
7
proper analysis, with the exception of Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief. The Court will
8
adopt the findings and recommendations in part as explained below.
9
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive
10
relief on the ground that it appeared that Plaintiff had transferred to another institution
11
and was no longer under the care of Defendants. (ECF No. 114 at 7.) The Magistrate
12
Judge noted that Plaintiff was housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment
13
Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California, but complained of acts that occurred at
14
Corcoran State Prison. In his objections, Plaintiff states that the events at issue occurred
15
at CSATF, where he remains housed. A review of the fourth amended complaint and the
16
docket supports Plaintiff’s contention. While the complaint at times states the Defendants
17
are at “Corcoran,” which may have been misconstrued as indicating Corcoran State
18
Prison, it also states that the events occurred at CSATF. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
19
allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to state a cognizable claim for injunctive
20
relief.1 Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed on this claim.
In all other respects, Plaintiff’s objections do not raise an issue of fact or law
21
22
under the findings and recommendations.
23
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
24
1.
25
The Court adopts in part the findings and recommendations, filed February
10, 2017 (ECF No. 114);
26
27
28
1
To the extent Plaintiff wishes to request preliminary injunctive relief, he may file a motion seeking same.
The Court does not herein address Plaintiff’s request that “this court . . . honor the pain management
guide/lines.”
2
1
2.
2
3
for damages and injunctive relief against Defendants Kokor and Sunduram;
3.
4
5
Plaintiff shall proceed on his Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim
All other claims asserted in the fourth amended complaint are DISMISSED
without leave to amend, and
4.
6
Defendants shall file a responsive pleading or motion within fourteen days
of this order.
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
March 14, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?