Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00858/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00858-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIZ VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-00858-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS BE 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 

PART

(ECF Nos. 62, 84)

Plaintiff Luiz Valenzuela Rodriguez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 5, 2010. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed on February 29, 2012, against 1) 

Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Biter, Soto, Phillips, Da Veiga, Ozaeta, Betzinger, 

Gregory, Garza, Wegman, Alic, Grissom, Speidell, Davis, and Foster for violation of the Free 

Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment; 2) Defendant Garza for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and 3)

Defendants Harrington, Biter, Grissom, Soto, Da Veiga, Phillips, Ozaeta, Betzinger, Gregory, 

Wegman, Alic, Freir, and Rankin for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment (ECF Nos. 23 & 27.) 

Case 1:10-cv-00858-DAD-SAB Document 91 Filed 08/11/14 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

Pending before the Court is Defendant Da Viega’s, Phillips’ Betzinger’s, Gregory’s, 

Garza’s Speidell’s, Ozaeta’s, Wegman’s, Biter’s, Alec’s and Rankin’s Motion to Dismiss, filed 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on July 29, 2013. (ECF No. 62.) On May 

12, 2014, the Court issued a findings and recommendations recommending granting Defendants’ 

motion in part and denying in part. (ECF No. 62.) Neither party filed any objections. 

Pursuant to 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 the Court adopts the findings and 

recommendations, filed on May 12, 2014, in full.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00858-DAD-SAB Document 91 Filed 08/11/14 Page 2 of 2