Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391-28/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

DANIEL G. VALENCIA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WINFRED KOKOR, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR SCREENING 

(ECF No. 107)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 5, 2015, the Court screened 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and determined that it stated cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claims for inadequate medical care against Defendants Sunduram and 

Kokor. (ECF No. 55.) Plaintiff was given the option to proceed only on these claims or to 

amend again. Plaintiff chose to proceed. (ECF No. 57.) His non-cognizable claims were 

dismissed. (ECF No. 61.)

Defendant Kokor answered the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 70.) 

Defendant Sunduram filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 71.) As to the motion to 

dismiss, the Court concluded that the claims as pled were cognizable, but surmised that 

Plaintiff could nonetheless allege additional facts in support of his claims. (See ECF 

Nos. 88, 94.) Accordingly, Defendant Sunduram’s motion to dismiss was granted, the 

complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and Plaintiff again was given leave to amend. 

(Id.) 

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 109 Filed 11/29/16 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

Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on October 18, 2016. Defendants

request that the Court screen Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A.

Defendants’ request is HEREBY GRANTED. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s 

complaint in due course. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s amended complaint

within thirty days of the order adopting the Court’s screening order, if any claims are 

found to be cognizable.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 109 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 2