Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-32/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

DAVID ESTRADA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GIPSON, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv00919 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

(Document 84)

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

Pauperis in this this civil action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. 

This action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation 

of the First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for 

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On January 27, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 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 May 12, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Defendants’ motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties 

 

1 As the original motion is sealed, Defendants filed a redacted version of the motion on February 12, 2014.

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 90 Filed 06/17/14 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

and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. No objections 

have been filed.

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 that the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 12, 2014, are ADOPTED in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Documents 63, 65) is DENIED; and

3. Defendants SHALL FILE a responsive pleading within thirty days (30) days of 

the date of service of this order.

SO ORDERED

Dated: June 17, 2014

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

United States District Judge

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 90 Filed 06/17/14 Page 2 of 2