(PC) Gonzalez v. Cate et al, No. 2:2011cv03196 - Document 63 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/26/15 ADOPTING IN FULL 60 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 49 Motion to Amend the Complaint and DENYING 35 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of any order adopting this recommendation to file a third amended complaint that complies with Local Rule 220 (see footnote). (Meuleman, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE GONZALEZ, JR., 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:11-cv-3196-GEB-EFB P v. ORDER CATE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 8, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 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. Defendants have filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 8, 2015, are adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended (ECF No. 49) is granted; 4 3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s SAC (ECF No. 35) is denied; and 5 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of any order adopting this 6 recommendation to file a third amended complaint that complies with Local Rule 220.1 7 Dated: February 26, 2015 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff need not file another amended complaint. His proposed third amended complaint was filed on February 4, 2015, and will be screened by the magistrate judge in due course. 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.