Valencia v. Kokor

Filing 94

ORDER ADOPTING 88 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER GRANTING 71 Defendant Sundaram's Motion to Dismiss; ORDER DENYING 81 Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order; and ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint Within Thirty (30) Days signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/7/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL G. VALENCIA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

KOKOR, et al.,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND (1)
GRANTING DEFENDANT SUNDARAM’S
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND; AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Defendants.
(Document 88)

16
17
18

No. 1:13-cv-01391 LJO DLB PC

Plaintiff Daniel G. Valencia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se
in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second

19
Amended Complaint for violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Kokor and
20
Sundaram.
21
Defendant Sundaram filed a motion to dismiss on February 16, 2016. In conjunction with
22
his opposition, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The matters were
23
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
24
302.
25
On June 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that (1)
26

Defendant Sundaram’s motion be granted with leave to amend; and (2) Plaintiff’s motion for a

27
temporary restraining order be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on
28
1

1

the parties and contained notice that any objections must be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff

2

filed objections on June 16, 2016.

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

4

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

5

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record

6

and proper analysis.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 2, 2016, are adopted in full;

9

2.

Defendant Sundaram’s motion to dismiss (Document 71) is GRANTED;

10

3.

Plaintiff SHALL file an amended complaint1 within thirty (30) days of the date of

11

service of this order;

12

4.

13

Defendant Sundaram must file a response to the amended complaint within thirty
(30) days of the date of service; and

14

5.

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Document 81) is DENIED.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

17

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

July 7, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27

Plaintiff’s amended complaint may not add new claims against either Defendant. He may only add the facts
presented in his opposition related to Defendant Sundaram, and any other facts that may further explain his claim
against Defendant Sundaram.

28
2