-GGH (PC) Lopez v. Schwarzenneger, et al., No. 2:2009cv01760 - Document 93 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER adopting in full 75 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 9/14/11. Defendant Park's 42 motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendants' 38 motion to dismiss by defendants Cate, Garcia, Berna, Cronja gar, Gomez and Florez; defendant Park's motion to dismiss 42 ; and defendants' 55 motion to dismiss brought by defendants McClure, Russ, Williams, Burt, Fischer and Buechner, are GRANTED as to claims two and six. Plaintiff is however, GR ANTED leave to amend. The aforementioned Defendants' motion to dismiss claim three is GRANTED and that claim is DISMISSED. Claim seven, construed as essentially subsumed within Claim four as it relates to the claims and defendants upon which this case is proceeding is DISMISSED as duplicative. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
-GGH (PC) Lopez v. Schwarzenneger, et al. Doc. 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW RICK LOPEZ, 12 No. 2:09-cv-01760 MCE GGH P Plaintiff, 13 vs. ORDER 14 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 5, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff, who was 23 granted an extension of time to do so, has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local 2 Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 3 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 4 proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 5, 2011, are adopted in full; 7 2. Defendant Park’s February 28, 2011 motion to dismiss (Docket No. 42) is 8 9 denied on the ground that plaintiff’s action is barred by the statute of limitations; 3. Defendants’ February 22, 2011 motion to dismiss (Docket No. 38), by 10 defendants Cate, Garcia, Berna, Cronjagar, Gomez and Florez; defendant Park’s February 28, 11 2011 motion to dismiss (Docket No. 42); and defendants’ March 28, 2011 motion to dismiss 12 (Docket No. 55), brought by defendants McClure, Russ, Williams, Burt, Fischer and Buechner, 13 are granted as to claims two and six. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to amend solely to 14 state how he has satisfied the pleading requirements of the California Government Claims Act 15 with respect to those claims, citing the applicable facts and/or any circumstances precluding him 16 from providing specific documentation of such compliance; 17 18 19 20 4. The aforementioned Defendants’ motion to dismiss claim three is granted and that claim is dismissed; and 5. Claim seven, construed as essentially subsumed within Claim four as it relates to the claims and defendants upon which this case is proceeding is dismissed as duplicative. 21 22 23 24 Dated: September 14, 2011 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 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.