(PC) Valencia v. Gibson et al, No. 1:2012cv01446 - Document 83 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 78 , Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint 71 , Reinstating Plaintiff's Official Capacity Claim Against Defendant Jeffrey Beard and Striking First Amended Complaint from Record, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/3/15. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABEL VALENCIA, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. RUIZ, et.al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-01446-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, REINSTATING PLAINTIFF’S OFFICIAL CAPACITY CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARD AND STRIKING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FROM RECORD [ECF Nos. 71, 72, 78] Plaintiff Abel Valencia is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 20 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend be granted, reinstating Plaintiff’s official 21 capacity claim against Defendant Jeffrey Beard for injunctive relief, and striking the first amended 22 complaint from the record. 23 The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 24 objections were to be filed within thirty days. The thirty day time frame has expired and neither party 25 filed objections. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 27 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 28 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED; 3 2. Plaintiff’s official capacity claim against Defendant Jeffrey Beard for injunctive relief is reinstated; and 4 5 6 3. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, lodged on July 24, 2015 (ECF No. 72) is STRICKEN from the record. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: December 3, 2015 10 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 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.