Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00266/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00266-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOAQUIN MURILLO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HOLLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00266-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATION ON 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docs. 53, 57)

Plaintiff, Joaquin Murillo, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On April 27, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations on 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, recommending that it be granted in part and denied in part, which 

was served on the parties and notified the parties that objections were to be filed within twentyone days. (Doc. 57.) Neither side filed objections. Local Rule 304(b), (d). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. the Findings and Recommendations, filed on April 27, 2017, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on January 18, 2017 (Doc. 53), is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 58 Filed 06/01/17 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

a. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims under California 

law since he failed to comply with the California Government Claims Act;

b Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendants in their official capacities since they are entitled to immunity 

under the Eleventh Amendment; 

c. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s request for injunctive 

relief since it is moot; 

d. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claims against them for 

violation of the Eighth Amendment in their individual capacities upon 

which Plaintiff may proceed;

(1) Defendants K. Holland, J. Gutierrez, and G. Ybarra SHALL file an 

answer to these claims within 21 days of the date of service of this 

order; and 

e. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims against the 

individuals identified as “Unnamed Correctional Officers” since Plaintiff’s 

allegations do not establish their personal involvement or the requisite 

causal link for a cognizable claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2017 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00266-DC-SCR Document 58 Filed 06/01/17 Page 2 of 2