Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01308/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01308-6/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

DARREN KAWAMOTO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01308-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING, IN PART, FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS

ECF Nos. 22 and 40

Plaintiff Darren Kawamoto, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 8, 2011. 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 March 31, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendations 

recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismisss be denied. (ECF No. 40.) Defendants filed 

objections on April 9, 2014. (ECF No. 41.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

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 

Case 1:11-cv-01308-LJO-MJS Document 43 Filed 07/09/14 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

analysis. However, the Magistrate Judge’s order recommended that the Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss be denied entirely when its analysis indicated that the motion should be granted in part 

and denied in part.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 31, 2014, are adopted in part;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22) is granted in part and denied in part;

3. Plaintiff shall proceed with his claims for damages pursuant to the Americans 

with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act against the California Department 

of Corrections and the remaining Defendants in their official capacities;

4. Plaintiff shall proceed with his Equal Protection claim for damages against all the 

Defendants in their individual capacities except the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation; and

5. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6.

Case 1:11-cv-01308-LJO-MJS Document 43 Filed 07/09/14 Page 2 of 2