(PC) Frierson v. Ojeda, No. 1:2014cv00553 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and REQUIRING Defendant to File Answer Within Ten Days, 14 , 20 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/13/15. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LAVELL FRIERSON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 U. OJEDA, 14 Defendant. _____________________________________/ Case No. 1:14-cv-00553-LJO-SKO (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND REQUIRING DEFENDANT FO TILE ANSWER WITHIN TEN DAYS (Docs. 14 and 20) 15 16 Plaintiff Lavell Frierson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 18, 2014. This action 18 is proceeding on Plaintiff’s claim for damages against Defendant Ojeda (“Defendant”) for 19 endangering Plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States 20 Constitution 21 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings 23 and Recommendations recommending Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 12(b)(6). Defendant filed an Objection on October 14, 2015. Local Rule 304(b). Plaintiff did not 25 respond. Local Rule 304(d). 26 At the pleading stage, Plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true and he must be 27 afforded the benefit of any doubt. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014); Akhtar 28 v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 1 2012). In this case, Plaintiff’s factual allegations are sufficient to permit him to proceed past the 2 pleading stage, which is a “low threshold.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1123; see Lemire v. California 3 Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-78 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing elements of Eighth 4 Amendment claim).1 Defendant’s strenuous argument to the contrary is perplexing at best; and his 5 citation to a non-pro se civil case raising entirely different constitutional claims is unpersuasive, as 6 are his citations to an unpublished, factually distinguishable decision and two other factually 7 distinguishable decisions.2 8 Defendant may be assured that in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 9 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case, and it has determined the 10 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. 13 The Findings and Recommendations, filed on September 30, 2015, is adopted in full; 14 2. 15 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on July 8, 2015, is DENIED, with prejudice; and 16 3. 17 Defendant shall file an Answer within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 20 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill November 13, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 2 28 Compl., ¶¶5, 8, 14. Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011); Williams v. Wood, 223 Fed.Appx. 670, 671 (9th Cir. 2007); Morgan v. MacDonald, 41 F.3d 1291, 1294 (9th Cir. 1994); and Avery v. Kernan, 2006 WL 1795104 *2 (E.D.Cal. 2006). 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.