Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00063/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00063-1/pdf.json

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

---

– 1 – 16-cv-0063 DMS (WVG)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH L. FAULKNER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-0063 DMS (WVG)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION (2) 

GRANTING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (3) 

GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

DISMISS

v.

KEN PHILLIPS ET AL.,

Defendants.

On January 8, 2016, Plaintiff Kenneth L. Faulkner, Jr., a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 11, 

2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and Defendants Buck and Farias also 

filed a motion for summary judgment. 

On December 2, 2016, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant the motion for 

summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and grant in part

and deny in part the motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge 

recommended the Court grant the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s official capacity and 

injunctive relief claims against all Defendants and qualified immunity claims against 

Defendants Buck and Farias, and deny the motion insofar as it argues Plaintiff’s 

claims arising out of the disciplinary hearing are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 

U.S. 477 (1994). 

Case 3:16-cv-00063-DMS-WVG Document 27 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 2
– 2 – 16-cv-0063 DMS (WVG)

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

The deadline for filing objections was December 28, 2016. No objections 

were filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. Consequently, 

the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, having reviewed de novo the 

Magistrate Judge’s R&R, this Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Defendants 

Buck and Farias’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Because the Court 

grants their motion for summary judgment, the motion to dismiss is denied as moot 

as to Defendants Buck and Farias, but granted as to Defendants Phillips and Posner.

Because Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims against Defendants Posner and 

Phillips remain pending, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(C), 

Defendants Phillips and Posner shall file their Answer to the Complaint within 21 

days of the filing of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017

_____________________________

The Honorable Dana M. Sabraw

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00063-DMS-WVG Document 27 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 2