Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02745/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02745-2/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 – 15-cv-2745 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

DAVID B. DURAN,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-2745 DMS (WVG)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

OMAR MANDUJANO ET AL.,

Defendants.

On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff David B. Duran, a state prisoner proceeding 

pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Omar Mandujano, 

Alfredo Hernandez, and John Seaman filed their respective Answers on June 8, 

2016, and Defendant Luis Hernandez filed an Answer on June 15, 2016. 

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”).1

 On September 8, 

2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim. On 

January 31, 2017, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a Report and 

 1 On August 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended 

Complaint in order to add two exhibits. (ECF No. 33.) The Court granted the motion 

and ordered Plaintiff to file his FAC by September 2, 2016. (ECF No. 34.) On 

August 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Document No. 33 by Permission 

of the Court, requesting the Court to construe his previous motion as his FAC. (ECF 

No. 37.) On August 23, 2016, the Court granted the motion and deemed as FAC the 

complaint and the exhibits filed in the Motion for Leave to File an Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 40.) 

Case 3:15-cv-02745-DMS-WVG Document 69 Filed 03/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
– 2 – 15-cv-2745 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

Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant in part with leave to 

amend and grant in part without leave to amend the FAC. Plaintiff filed objections

to the R&R on February 21, 2017.

This Court, having reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and the 

objections thereto, adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and grants 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended 

Complaint (“SAC”) that cures the pleading deficiencies identified in the R&R. The 

SAC shall be filed on or before March 31, 2017. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02745-DMS-WVG Document 69 Filed 03/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2