Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00921/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00921-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Archie Cranford is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions 

Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 

On November 3, 2015, the magistrate judge filed a Findings and Recommendation which was 

served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that objections to the Findings and 

Recommendation were to be filed within thirty days. Defendant filed objections on November 5, 

2015, and Plaintiff filed a response on November 16, 2015. Local Rule 304(b), (d).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

///

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANTONIA OKPALA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND 

REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

[ECF Nos. 16, 25]

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed on November 3, 2015, is adopted in full; and

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is DENIED; and

3. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 2