Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757-17/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS V. RODRIGUEZ, 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

vs. 

 

CDCR DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW 

BOARD, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 1:12-cv-00757-AWI-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT 

AND DNEY DEFENDANTS' MOTION

TO DISMISS

(Docs. 52, 60, 66)

Plaintiff, Louis V. Rodriguez, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff is 

proceeding on his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 28.) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. 

(Doc. 52.) Plaintiff responded by filing an opposition and a motion for leave to file an amended 

complaint to which Defendants replied. (Docs. 60, 64.) On December 23, 2014, the Magistrate 

Judge recommended Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part and that

Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend be granted and allowed thirty days for the parties to file 

objections. (Doc. 66.) More than thirty days have now passed and neither side has filed 

objections.

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.

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 67 Filed 02/23/15 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on December 23, 2014, is adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Cox, Cavazos, and 

Terrell for failure to state a claim is DENIED;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against Cavazos and 

Terrell for failure to state a claim is DENIED; 

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s excessive force claim for violation of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) regarding the incident of November 3, 2010, is

GRANTED with leave to amend and Plaintiff's request for leave to amend as stated in 

his opposition is GRANTED; 

5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against Cox, 

Cavazos, and Terrell as barred by Heck and Balisok is DENIED;

6. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliation and excessive force claims 

against Defendants Cox, Cavazos, and Terrell based on qualified immunity is

DENIED without prejudice; and

7. within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either:

a. file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the 

findings and recommendations, or

b. notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a second amended 

complaint and wishes to proceed only on the claims identified in the 

findings and recommendations as viable; and

8. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure 

to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 67 Filed 02/23/15 Page 2 of 2