Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02010/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02010-8/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

ADAM LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-02010-DAD-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION 

TO DISMISS ON CLAIM / ISSUE 

PRECLUSION GROUNDS, AND 

DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE AN 

ANSWER 

(Doc. Nos. 26, 40)

Plaintiff, Adam Lopez, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed on December 9, 2013. (Doc. Nos. 1, 10.) 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 January 28, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 

recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on collateral estoppel/res 

judicata grounds be denied. Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 

contained notice to the parties that objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 

filed within twenty-one days. (Doc. No. 40.) Despite the lapse of more than the allotted time, 

neither side has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Local Rule 304(b), (d). 

Case 1:13-cv-02010-LJO-SAB Document 41 Filed 03/10/16 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

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 legal analysis. The assigned 

magistrate judge appropriately concluded that in arguing plaintiff is precluded from prosecuting 

this action due to the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Martinez v. 

Allison, et al., 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB (E.D. Cal.), defendants have, at the very least, failed to 

establish the required privity exists between plaintiff and the plaintiff in Martinez. (Doc. No. 40 

at 5-6.) Absent that showing, their motion to dismiss must be denied. 

For the reasons set forth above:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on January 28, 2016 are ADOPTED IN 

FULL; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 26) filed on August 18, 2015 seeking 

dismissal on grounds of claim or issue preclusion/collateral estoppel/res judicata is 

DENIED; and

3. Defendants are directed to file an answer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint 

(Doc. No. 20) within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02010-LJO-SAB Document 41 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 2