Torres v. Gipson et al
Filing
47
ORDER ADOPTING 38 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING 26 Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss, this action shall proceed only on Plaintiffs claims for First Amendment retaliation against Defendants Smith, Prince, Henderson, Mayo, Galaviz, and Weaver, all other claims and Defendants are DISMISSED; ORDER GRANTING 45 Motion for Extension; Case to Remain Open, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/13/2018. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
JUAN MATIAS TORRES,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01525-LJO-JLT (PC)
ORDER
v.
(1) ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION IN FULL;
CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants.
15
16
(ECF Nos. 26, 38, 45)
17
CASE TO REMAIN OPEN
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
19
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant
20
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On April 16, 2018, the previously-assigned magistrate judge filed findings and
22
recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any
23
objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has
24
filed objections, and Defendants have filed a response. Plaintiff has also filed a request for extension
25
26
27
28
of time to file a sur-reply (ECF No. 45) and the sur-reply itself. Plaintiff’s request will be granted.
1
The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported
2
by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
3
that:
4
1. Plaintiff’s June 20, 2018, motion for extension of time (ECF No. 45) is granted;
5
2. The findings and recommendations filed April 16, 2018 (ECF No. 38), are adopted in
6
full;
7
3. Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED. The action shall
8
proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims for First Amendment retaliation against Defendants
9
Smith, Prince, Henderson, Mayo, Galaviz, and Weaver for approving Plaintiff’s transfer
10
to Pelican Bay in retaliation for Plaintiff’s protected First Amendment activity of filing
11
a prison grievance. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed.
12
4. Case to remain open.
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
August 13, 2018
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
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?