-JFM (PC)Milliken v. Lightfield et al, No. 2:2010cv01412 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 7/21/11 ORDERING that the Magistrate Judge's FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS of6/21/11 27 are ADOPTED in full; And Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 19 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
-JFM (PC)Milliken v. Lightfield et al Doc. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---11 12 JAMES M. MILLIKEN, NO. CIV. 2:10-1412 WBS JFM 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, D. LIGHTFIELD, et al., Defendants. 17 / 18 19 ORDER RE: MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. ----oo0oo---Plaintiff James M. Milliken, a prisoner proceeding pro 20 se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging 21 violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. 22 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local General Order No. 262, and Local 24 Rule 302(c)(17). 25 failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure 12(b)(6), and Magistrate Judge Moulds recommended that 27 the court deny defendants’ motion in his Findings and 28 Recommendations issued June 21, 2011. The matter was Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for Defendants did not file 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 objections to the Findings and Recommendations. This court has reviewed the record and the Findings and 3 Recommendations and will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s 4 recommendation to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss. 5 the Magistrate Judge did not cite to or discuss the Supreme 6 Court’s most recent decision addressing motions to dismiss under 7 Rule 12(b)(6), Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, --- U.S. ---- 8 (2009), the court is satisfied that the Magistrate Judge applied 9 the proper standard, especially given the Magistrate Judge’s Although 10 discussion of Starr v. Baca, 633 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2011). 11 Starr, the Ninth Circuit addressed Iqbal’s effect on Rule 12 8(a)(2)’s pleading standard and “supervisor liability” under § 13 1983, which were both at issue in defendants’ motion to dismiss. 14 In Accordingly, because the Magistrate Judge’s Findings 15 and Recommendations are supported by the record and analysis of 16 relevant law, the court will adopt the Findings and 17 Recommendations in full. 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) the Magistrate Judge’s 19 Findings and Recommendations of June 21, 2011, be, and the same 20 hereby are, adopted in full; and (2) defendants’ motion to 21 dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint be, and same hereby 22 is, DENIED. 23 DATED: July 21, 2011 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.