Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00759/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00759-13/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

THOMAS JOHN CARLSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HANSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

STATE CLAIM CLAIMS AS BARRED BY 

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND 

REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

ANSWER WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

(Docs. 62, 65, 66, and 73)

Plaintiff Thomas John Carlson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 30, 2010. This 

action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed on November 6, 2013, against 

Defendants Worth, Newton, Rodriquez, Vega, Monroy, Angulo, Madrid, O=Brien, Abraham, 

Alvarado, Chan, Garza, Ikeni, McCave, and Villa (“Defendants”) for acting with deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff=s medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United 

States Constitution. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims

for negligence and/or violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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 July 8, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 

Recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that 

Case 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO Document 77 Filed 08/04/14 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

Objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fifteen days. No 

Objections were filed. 

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 July 8, 2014, is adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims as barred by the statute 

of limitations, filed on January 15, 2014, is DENIED, without prejudice; and

3. Defendants shall file an answer to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint within 

twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO Document 77 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 2