Lopez v. Allison et al
Filing
41
ORDER ADOPTING 40 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 26 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and ORDER Directing Defendants to File an Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Within Twenty-One (21) Days signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/9/2016. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ADAM LOPEZ,
12
13
14
No. 1:13-cv-02010-DAD-JLT
Plaintiff,
v.
K. ALLISON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION
TO DISMISS ON CLAIM / ISSUE
PRECLUSION GROUNDS, AND
DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE AN
ANSWER
(Doc. Nos. 26, 40)
17
18
19
Plaintiff, Adam Lopez, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
20
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed on December 9, 2013. (Doc. Nos. 1, 10.) The
21
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
22
Local Rule 302.
23
On January 28, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations
24
recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on collateral estoppel/res
25
judicata grounds be denied. Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and
26
contained notice to the parties that objections to the findings and recommendations were to be
27
filed within twenty-one days. (Doc. No. 40.) Despite the lapse of more than the allotted time,
28
neither side has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Local Rule 304(b), (d).
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
2
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
3
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper legal analysis. The assigned
4
magistrate judge appropriately concluded that in arguing plaintiff is precluded from prosecuting
5
this action due to the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Martinez v.
6
Allison, et al., 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB (E.D. Cal.), defendants have, at the very least, failed to
7
establish the required privity exists between plaintiff and the plaintiff in Martinez. (Doc. No. 40
8
at 5-6.) Absent that showing, their motion to dismiss must be denied.
9
For the reasons set forth above:
10
1. The findings and recommendations filed on January 28, 2016 are ADOPTED IN
11
FULL;
12
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 26) filed on August 18, 2015 seeking
13
dismissal on grounds of claim or issue preclusion/collateral estoppel/res judicata is
14
DENIED; and
15
3. Defendants are directed to file an answer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint
16
(Doc. No. 20) within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 9, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?