Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00231-7/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

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

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HEFFLEFINGER, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv00231 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING 

COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AND DISMISSING 

REMAINING CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

(Document 28)

Plaintiff Luis V. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on February 14, 2013. Pursuant to 

Court order, he filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 14, 2014. 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 January 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

finding certain claims cognizable and dismissing the remaining claims and Defendants. The 

Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any 

objections must be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff has not 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 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 29 Filed 03/17/15 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 Recommendations, filed January 30, 2015, are adopted in full; 

2. This action will go forward on the following cognizable claims: (1) retaliation 

in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Anderson, Hefflefinger, 

Badger, McAllister, Tredwell, Sheldon, Speidell, Duncan, Lovofoy and Huerta; 

(2) violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Lovofoy; and (3) 

violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Hefflefinger and Lovofoy 

based on conditions of confinement; and1

3. All other claims, as well as Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Biter, Williams, Smith, 

DaViega and Tarnoff, are DISMISSED from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff will be instructed on service by separate order.

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 29 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 2