(PC) Hoffman v. Coyle et al, No. 1:2016cv01617 - Document 41 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, and DENYING as Moot Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 37 , 38 , 40 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/9/2019: This matter is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCELLAS HOFFMAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 TIMOTHY PRESTON, 15 Case No. 1:16-cv-01617-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant. (ECF Nos. 37, 38, 40) 16 17 Plaintiff Marcellas Hoffman is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 19 Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 8, 2018, Defendant Timothy Preston filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 22 37.) On November 26, 2018, Plaintiff requested leave to file the proposed first amended complaint 23 that he had included as Attachment 1 to his opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF no. 24 38, at 1, 22, 24-32.)1 25 On March 15, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 26 recommending that Plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint be granted and that 27 1 28 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the CM/ECF electronic court docketing system. 1 1 Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied as moot. 2 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were 3 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 8.) 4 More than fourteen days have passed since the findings and recommendations were served and no 5 objections have been filed. (ECF No. 40.) The findings and 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 8 Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 9 analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. 12 The findings and recommendations issued on March 15, 2019, (ECF No. 40), are adopted in full; 13 2. 14 Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a first amended complaint, (ECF No. 38), is GRANTED; 15 3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 37), is DENIED as MOOT; 16 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which 17 consists of pages 25 through 32 of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to 18 dismiss, (ECF No. 38); 19 5. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s first amended complaint as quickly as possible given the Court’s heavy caseload; 20 21 6. The Court will schedule an evidentiary hearing regarding exhaustion of 22 administrative remedies if a hearing is necessary after Plaintiff’s first amended 23 complaint is screened; and 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 /// 2 1 7. This matter is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 2 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ April 9, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 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.