Murillo v. Holland et al

Filing 58

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 53 , 57 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/1/17: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 21-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOAQUIN MURILLO, 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, v. HOLLAND, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00266-LJO-JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Docs. 53, 57) Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff, Joaquin Murillo, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 16 this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 17 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On April 27, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations on 19 Defendants’ motion to dismiss, recommending that it be granted in part and denied in part, which 20 was served on the parties and notified the parties that objections were to be filed within twenty- 21 one days. (Doc. 57.) Neither side filed objections. Local Rule 304(b), (d). 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 23 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 24 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. the Findings and Recommendations, filed on April 27, 2017, are adopted in full; 27 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on January 18, 2017 (Doc. 53), is 28 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1 1 a. 2 Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims under California law since he failed to comply with the California Government Claims Act; 3 b Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims against 4 Defendants in their official capacities since they are entitled to immunity 5 under the Eleventh Amendment; 6 c. 7 Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief since it is moot; 8 d. 9 Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claims against them for violation of the Eighth Amendment in their individual capacities upon 10 which Plaintiff may proceed; 11 (1) Defendants K. Holland, J. Gutierrez, and G. Ybarra SHALL file an 12 answer to these claims within 21 days of the date of service of this 13 order; and 14 e. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims against the 15 individuals identified as “Unnamed Correctional Officers” since Plaintiff’s 16 allegations do not establish their personal involvement or the requisite 17 causal link for a cognizable claim. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ June 1, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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?