(PC) Farley v. Virga et al, No. 2:2013cv01751 - Document 92 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 89 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/23/2015. Defendants' 42 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to all claims brought against defendants Virga and Hamkar. Defendants' 42 Mo tion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to those claims brought against defendants Miers, Delaney, May, Higgins, Gonzales, Scoggins, Curren, and Stewart in their official capacities. Plaintiff William Farley has 20 days from date of Order is signed to file an Amended Complaint, if he can do so consistent with this Order. If plaintiff files an Amended Complaint within 20 days from date of this Order, all defendants shall respond. If plaintiff does not file an Amended Complaint within 20 days from the dat e Order is signed, defendants Miers, Delaney, May, Higgins, Gonzales, Scoggins, Curren, and Stewart shall file a Response to plaintiff's 11 First Amendment Complaint by addressing those claims brought against them in their personal capacities. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 13 WILLIAM D. FARLEY, Plaintiff, 14 15 CIV. NO. 2:13-1751 WBS KJN P ORDER v. 16 17 T. VIRGA, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 ----oo0oo---- 20 Plaintiff William D. Farley is a state prisoner, 21 22 proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 23 § 1983. 24 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 25 302(c)(17). 26 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate On January 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed 27 Findings and Recommendations (“F&Rs”) that were served on all 28 parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 1 1 objections to the F&Rs were to be filed within fourteen days. 2 (F&Rs at 10 (Docket No. 89).) 3 failure to file objections within that time may waive the right 4 to appeal the District Court’s order. 5 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 the F&Rs. The parties were advised that (Id.); Martinez v. Ylst, No party has filed objections to The court has reviewed the file and finds the F&Rs to 7 8 be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s 9 analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 (1) The Findings and Recommendations filed January 28, 12 2015, be, and the same hereby are, adopted in 13 full; 14 (2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 42) be, 15 and the same hereby is, GRANTED as to all claims 16 brought against defendants Virga and Hamkar; 17 (3) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 42) be, 18 and the same hereby is, GRANTED as to those claims 19 brought against defendants Miers, Delaney, May, 20 Higgins, Gonzales, Scoggins, Curren, and Stewart 21 in their official capacities; 22 (4) Plaintiff William Farley has twenty days from the 23 date this Order is signed to file an amended 24 complaint, if he can do so consistent with this 25 Order. 26 (5) If plaintiff files an amended complaint within 27 twenty days from the date this Order is signed, 28 all defendants shall respond to that amended 2 complaint; 1 (6) 2 If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint 3 within twenty days from the date this Order is 4 signed, defendants Miers, Delaney, May, Higgins, 5 Gonzales, Scoggins, Curren, and Stewart shall file 6 a response to plaintiff’s First Amendment 7 Complaint (Docket No. 11) by addressing those 8 claims brought against them in their personal 9 capacities. 10 Dated: February 23, 2015 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.