(PC) Valencia v. Kokor, No. 1:2013cv01391 - Document 116 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 114 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Non-Cognizable Claims; ORDER Directing Defendants to File Responsive Pleading or Motion Within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/14/2017. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL G. VALENCIA, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. WINFRED KOKOR, et al., Defendants. CASE No. 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS (ECF Nos. 111, 114) DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING OR MOTION WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 18 19 20 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 22 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States 23 District Court for the Eastern District of California. 24 On February 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s fourth amended 25 complaint and found that it states a cognizable Eighth Amendment medical indifference 26 claim for damages against Defendants Kokor and Sunduram, but no other cognizable 27 claims. (ECF No. 114.) The Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations for 28 1 Plaintiff to proceed on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for damages and for 2 dismissal of the remaining claims. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 115.) 3 Defendants filed no response. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 5 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 6 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 7 proper analysis, with the exception of Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief. The Court will 8 adopt the findings and recommendations in part as explained below. 9 The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive 10 relief on the ground that it appeared that Plaintiff had transferred to another institution 11 and was no longer under the care of Defendants. (ECF No. 114 at 7.) The Magistrate 12 Judge noted that Plaintiff was housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment 13 Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California, but complained of acts that occurred at 14 Corcoran State Prison. In his objections, Plaintiff states that the events at issue occurred 15 at CSATF, where he remains housed. A review of the fourth amended complaint and the 16 docket supports Plaintiff’s contention. While the complaint at times states the Defendants 17 are at “Corcoran,” which may have been misconstrued as indicating Corcoran State 18 Prison, it also states that the events occurred at CSATF. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 19 allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to state a cognizable claim for injunctive 20 relief.1 Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed on this claim. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s objections do not raise an issue of fact or law 21 22 under the findings and recommendations. 23 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. 25 The Court adopts in part the findings and recommendations, filed February 10, 2017 (ECF No. 114); 26 27 28 1 To the extent Plaintiff wishes to request preliminary injunctive relief, he may file a motion seeking same. The Court does not herein address Plaintiff’s request that “this court . . . honor the pain management guide/lines.” 2 1 2. 2 3 for damages and injunctive relief against Defendants Kokor and Sunduram; 3. 4 5 Plaintiff shall proceed on his Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim All other claims asserted in the fourth amended complaint are DISMISSED without leave to amend, and 4. 6 Defendants shall file a responsive pleading or motion within fourteen days of this order. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ March 14, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.