Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03196/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03196-11/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GONZALEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-3196-GEB-EFB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 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.

On July 28, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations and argue that plaintiff should not be given leave 

to amend his First and Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Cate, Miner, Gamberg, and 

Fernberg. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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 

Case 2:11-cv-03196-GEB-EFB Document 85 Filed 09/07/16 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

analysis. The court rejects defendants’ objections because leave to amend should be granted if it 

appears possible that the defects could be corrected, particularly where a claimant is pro se. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). The court is unprepared to declare that 

amendment is absolutely futile at this juncture. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 

(9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some 

notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could 

not be cured by amendment.”) (citing Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

Additionally, any amendment will be subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and the 

court trusts that any plainly deficient claims will be flagged for dismissal at that time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 28, 2016, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 73) is granted; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date this order is filed to amend his Eighth 

Amendment conditions of confinement claims and First Amendment access to the courts claim 

against defendants Cate, Gower, Miner, and Fernberg.

Dated: September 7, 2016

Case 2:11-cv-03196-GEB-EFB Document 85 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 2