Hooker v. Kimura-Yip et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/27/14 recommending that the second amended complaint 54 be dismissed; and the clerk of the court close this case. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DONALD OLIVER HOOKER,
No. 2:11-cv-0899 TLN CKD P
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
T. KIMURA-YIP, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. On December 5, 2013, the district court ordered as follows:
Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which
to file a Second Amended Complaint raising only Eighth
Amendment claims based on allegations of events that occurred on
or after his transfer to California State Prison-Corcoran in February
2011 and naming individuals in place of the Doe defendant at
California State Prison-Los Angeles County . . . [.]
(ECF No. 45 at 3-4) (emphasis added). The district court agreed with the magistrate judge’s
findings that “the allegations of the first amended complaint of events through 2011 do not state a
claim for violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights based on deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs,” and thus limited the scope of the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) as
set forth above. (Id. at 3; see also ECF No. 47 (denying leave to expand the SAC).)
Before the court for screening is plaintiff’s SAC. (ECF No. 54.) As it does not comply
with the limits set forth above, and in light of plaintiff’s two previous opportunities to amend, the
undersigned will recommend that SAC be dismissed and this action closed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 54) be dismissed. See Local Rule 110;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and
2. The Clerk of Court close this case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153
(9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: October 27, 2014
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 / hook0899.f&r
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?