Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00461/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00461-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DOE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORIZON HEALTHCARE et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00461-DAD-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 21)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO 

DISMISS, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

(Doc. No. 6)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM

(Doc. No. 7)

Plaintiff, suing under the pseudonym “John Doe Smith,” is a former Fresno County Jail 

civil detainee proceeding with counsel in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '

1983. 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 June 28, 2016, assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that (1) plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a complaint under a pseudonym (Doc. 

No. 7) be denied; (2) defendants’ motion to strike or require a more definite statement (Doc. No. 

Case 1:16-cv-00461-DAD-EPG Document 23 Filed 09/07/16 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

6) be denied; and (3) defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 6) be granted in part and denied in part, with leave to amend

being granted. (Doc. No. 21.) The parties were directed to file any objections to the findings and 

recommendations within twenty days. To date, no objections have been filed. However, on July 

25, 2016, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which appears to substitute plaintiff’s true 

name as the plaintiff in this case. (Doc. No. 22.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) 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 proper analysis. 

Accordingly,

1. The June 28, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 21) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a complaint under a pseudonym (Doc. No. 7) is

denied;

3. Defendants’ motion to strike or require a more definite statement (Doc. No. 6) is

denied;

4. Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, with 

leave to amend granted;

5. This case now proceeds on plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 22);

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute plaintiff’s true name “Daniel Trebus,” as it 

appears in the first amended complaint, for plaintiff’s pseudonym “John Doe Smith,” 

on the court’s docket; and

7. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00461-DAD-EPG Document 23 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 2