(PC) Samaniego v. CDCR, et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/31/2021 ADOPTING 23 Findings and Recommendations in full; DISMISSING defendant Diaz with prejudice; DISMISSING defendants Lynch and Curry without prejudice; DISMISSING plaintiff's challenge b ased solely on the integration policy with prejudice; DENYING 18 Motion to Dismiss defendants Ramirez, Parsons, and Spangler; DENYING 18 Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's failure to intervene claims; and DENYING 18 Motion for Qualified Immunity as to Defendants Ramirez, Parsons, and Spangler without prejudice. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FERNANDO SAMANIEGO,

12

No. 2:19-cv-02606-TLN-KJN

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

CDCR, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights action

18

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On February 17, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections to

23

the findings and recommendations.1 Defendants filed a response.

24
25
26
27
28

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
1

Because the Doe defendants were not one of the moving parties, it was not appropriate to
address such claims in ruling on the motion to dismiss. Should Plaintiff learn the identities of the
Doe parties, he must promptly move to file a second amended complaint to add them as
defendants.
1

1

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

2

analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 17, 2021, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

5

and

6

2. Defendant Diaz is DISMISSED with prejudice;

7

3. Plaintiff’s challenge based solely on the integration policy is DISMISSED with

8

prejudice;

9

4. Defendant Lynch is DISMISSED without prejudice;

10

5. Defendant Curry is DISMISSED without prejudice;

11

6. The motion to dismiss Defendants Ramirez, Parsons, and Spangler is DENIED;

12

7. The named Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s failure to intervene claims is

13
14

DENIED; and
8. The motion for qualified immunity as to Defendants Ramirez, Parsons, and Spangler is

15

DENIED without prejudice.

16

DATED: March 31, 2021

17
18
19
20

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2