Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(ECF Nos. 173, 179)

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed this action on March 11, 2009. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Local Rule 302.

On December 15, 2011, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint, and issued a Findings and Recommendationsrecommending dismissal of certain claims

and defendants from this action. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Objections, filed January 9,

2012.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 15, 2011, is adopted in full; 

2. This action shall proceed on the second amended complaint, filed November 22,

1

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 180 Filed 01/11/12 Page 1 of 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

2011 against:

a. Defendants Munoz, Clausing, and Omos for excessive force in pepper

spraying Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

b. Defendants Hutchins, Reynoso, Hacker, and Roberson for ordering that

Plaintiff’s property be removed from his cell and that Plaintiff be placed back

into the contaminated cell without a means to decontaminate from the pepper

spray; and

c. Defendants Morse and Paz for placing Plaintiff in the contaminated cell;

3. Plaintiff’s remaining Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for

failure to state a cognizable claim under section 1983;

4. Defendants Perez, Daley, Langler, and Henrichsen are dismissed, with prejudice, for

Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim against them; and

5. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 180 Filed 01/11/12 Page 2 of 2