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)

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