Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01446/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01446-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABEL VALENCIA,

 Plaintiff,

 

 vs.

CONNIE GIPSON, et al., 

 

 

 Defendants. 

1:12-cv-1446 AWI SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Doc. #’s 46 & 65

On April 18, 2014, the court issued an order adopting findings and recommendations 

allowing plaintiff Abel Valencia (“Plaintiff”) to proceed only as to claims against defendant D.J. 

Ruiz (“Ruiz”) for retaliation and against defendants D.J. Ruiz, A. Mayo, J.C. Garcia, J.C. Smith, 

S. Johnson and an unknown Institutional Gang Investigator (“IGI”) (collectively “Defendants”) 

for violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Doc. # 22. On December 16, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to all 

remaining claims against all remaining Defendants on the ground Plaintiff’s complaint fails to 

adequately allege exhaustion of administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation 

Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Doc. # 46. Currently before the court are 

findings of fact and recommendations of law (“F&R’s”) recommending that Defendants’ motion 

Case 1:12-cv-01446-AWI-SAB Document 76 Filed 09/11/15 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

for summary judgment be granted as to the retaliation claim against Ruiz, and as to the Due 

Process claims against Mayo, Garcia, Smith and Johnson. Doc. # 65. The Magistrate Judge’s 

F&R’s do not recommend granting summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Due Process claim 

against Ruiz. The Findings and Recommendation were served on Plaintiff with notice that any 

objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. In 

response, Petitioner filed objections to the F&R’s on July 6, 2015.

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's filings, 

the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by 

the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 8, 2015, are hereby ADOPTED in full.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants as to 

Plaintiff’s claim against Ruiz for retaliation and in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiffs 

claims against Mayo, Garcia, Smith and Johnson for Due Process violation.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Docket Number 71 is hereby 

REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of 

law.

4. Plaintiff’s claim against Ruiz for Due Process violation is REFERRED to the Magistrate 

Judge for further proceedings as appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01446-AWI-SAB Document 76 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 2