(PC) Estrada v. Gipson et al, No. 1:2013cv00919 - Document 90 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 84 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Defendants' 63 and 65 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 06/17/2014. (30-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Estrada v. Gipson et al Doc. 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 DAVID ESTRADA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. GIPSON, et al., 15 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:13cv00919 LJO DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Document 84) 16 Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 18 Pauperis in this this civil action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. 19 This action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation 20 of the First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for 21 violation of the Eighth Amendment. 22 23 24 25 On January 27, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 12, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 26 27 28 Defendants’ motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties 1 As the original motion is sealed, Defendants filed a redacted version of the motion on February 12, 2014. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. No objections 2 have been filed. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 12, 2014, are ADOPTED in full; 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Documents 63, 65) is DENIED; and 3. Defendants SHALL FILE a responsive pleading within thirty days (30) days of the date of service of this order. 12 13 14 SO ORDERED Dated: June 17, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill United States District Judge 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.