(PC)Carlos Pena v. Huckabay et al, No. 1:2009cv00404 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants from Action; ORDER Requiring Defendants Valencia, and Dever to Respond to Second Amended Complaint within Thirty Days signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 03/10/2011.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
(PC)Carlos Pena v. Huckabay et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CARLOS PENA, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00404-LJO-SMS PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FROM ACTION v. ROBERT SILLEN, et al., (Docs. 12 and 13) 13 Defendants. ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS VALENCIA AND DEVER TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 14 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff Carlos Pena, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on September 18 5, 2008, in Fresno County Superior Court. Defendants Huckabay, Ericson, Tucker, Valencia, and 19 Dever removed it to the court on February 27, 2009. . The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 26, 2011, a Findings and Recommendations was filed in which the Magistrate 22 Judge screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and recommended dismissal of certain 23 claims and parties for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The parties were notified that 24 objections, if any, were due within thirty days. No objections were filed 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 27 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on January 26, 2011, in full; 4 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed September 5 18, 2009, against Defendants Valencia and Dever for use of excessive force, in 6 violation of the Eighth Amendment; 7 3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claims, Eighth Amendment excessive 8 force claim against Defendant Tucker, and First Amendment retaliation claim are 9 dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 10 4. 11 Plaintiff’s state law tort claims are dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 12 5. 13 Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are dismissed for failure to state a claim; 14 6. 15 Defendants Huckabay, Ericson, Tucker, Hanner, and Sillen are dismissed from the action; and 16 7. 17 Defendants Valencia and Dever shall file a response to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: b9ed48 March 10, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.