Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391-30/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 G. VALENCIA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WINFRED KOKOR, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR SCREENING 

(ECF No. 112)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 5, 2015, the Court screened 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and determined that it stated cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claims for inadequate medical care against Defendants Sunduram and 

Kokor. (ECF No. 55.) Plaintiff was given the option to proceed on these claims alone or 

to amend again. Plaintiff chose to proceed. (ECF No. 57.) His non-cognizable claims 

were dismissed. (ECF No. 61.)

Defendant Kokor answered the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 70.) 

Defendant Sunduram filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 71.) As to the motion to 

dismiss, the Court concluded that the claims as pled were cognizable, but surmised that 

Plaintiff could nonetheless allege additional facts in support of his claims. (See ECF 

Nos. 88, 94.) Accordingly, Defendant Sunduram’s motion to dismiss was granted, the 

complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and Plaintiff again was given leave to amend. 

(Id.) 

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 113 Filed 01/30/17 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

Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on October 18, 2016. On December 

16, 2016, the Court screened the third amended complaint and dismissed it because it 

was not complete in itself. (ECF No. 110.) Plaintiff was given one final opportunity to 

amend. He filed his fourth amended complaint on January 17, 2017. (ECF No. 111.) 

Defendants request that the Court screen Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Defendants’ request is HEREBY GRANTED. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s 

fourth amended complaint in due course. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint within thirty days of the order adopting the Court’s screening order,

if any claims are found to be cognizable.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 113 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 2