(PC) Jimenez v. Horel, No. 2:2010cv02943 - Document 90 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/12/14 VACATING 80 Judgment and MODIFYING the 3/28/13 79 Order as follows: Defendant Whitfield's 60 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The 11/27/12 77 Findings and Recommendations are no t adopted; the 4/20/12 54 Judgment is VACATED; the 3/20/12 51 Order is MODIFIED as follows: Defendant's 37 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim that his rights under the Due Process Clause were violated; the 1/25/12 49 Order and Findings and Recommendations are not adopted; Plaintiff may submit a Second Amended Complaint within 45 days. (Manzer, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Jimenez v. Horel Doc. 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 No. 2:10-02943-KJM-KJN ROBERT JIMENEZ, Plaintiff, ORDER v. J. WHITFIELD, et al, Defendant. 16 17 This matter is before the court on the parties’ joint motion to vacate the judgments 18 previously entered against plaintiff Robert Jimenez, and in favor of defendants Bond, Grannis, 19 Melgoza, Sequira, Singh, Sisto and Whitfield, and to modify the orders upon which these 20 judgments were based. ECF No. 88. The parties seek this relief in order to give effect to a 21 settlement of Mr. Jimenez’s appeal of those judgments and orders, and to allow Mr. Jimenez’s 22 claims to continue before the district court. 23 24 Having reviewed the parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate Judgments and Modify Dispositive Orders, and the exhibits thereto, the court orders: 25 1. This court’s March 28, 2013 Judgment (ECF No. 80) is VACATED. 26 2. The March 28, 2013 Order (ECF No. 79) is MODIFIED as follows: 27 28 a. Defendant Whitfield’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF. No. 60) is DENIED; and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 b. The November 27, 2012 Findings & Recommendation (ECF. No. 77) are not 2 adopted to the extent that they are inconsistent with the preceding paragraph. 3 3. The April 20, 2012 Judgment (ECF. No. 54) is VACATED. 4 4. The March 20, 2012 Order (ECF. No. 51) is MODIFIED as follows: 5 a. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF. No. 37) is DENIED 6 as to plaintiff’s claim that his rights under the Due Process Clause were violated when 7 he was validated as a gang member in the absence of sufficient evidence; and 8 b. The January 25, 2012 Order and Findings & Recommendation (ECF. No. 49) 9 are not adopted to the extent that they are inconsistent with the preceding paragraphs. 10 5. Plaintiff may submit a Second Amended Complaint within 45 days of entry of this 11 Order, for the purpose of pleading additional facts to support his claim that Defendants 12 violated his Eighth Amendment rights. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 12, 2014. 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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.
