Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391-25/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

DANIEL G. VALENCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KOKOR, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-01391 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND (1) 

GRANTING DEFENDANT SUNDARAM’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND; AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Document 88)

Plaintiff Daniel G. Valencia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se 

in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint for violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Kokor and 

Sundaram. 

Defendant Sundaram filed a motion to dismiss on February 16, 2016. In conjunction with 

his opposition, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The matters were 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302.

On June 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that (1) 

Defendant Sundaram’s motion be granted with leave to amend; and (2) Plaintiff’s motion for a 

temporary restraining order be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on 

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 94 Filed 07/08/16 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

the parties and contained notice that any objections must be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff 

filed objections on June 16, 2016.

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, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record 

and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 2, 2016, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Sundaram’s motion to dismiss (Document 71) is GRANTED; 

3. Plaintiff SHALL file an amended complaint1 within thirty (30) days of the date of 

service of this order; 

4. Defendant Sundaram must file a response to the amended complaint within thirty 

(30) days of the date of service; and 

5. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Document 81) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff’s amended complaint may not add new claims against either Defendant. He may only add the facts 

presented in his opposition related to Defendant Sundaram, and any other facts that may further explain his claim 

against Defendant Sundaram.

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 94 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 2