Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00791/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00791-3/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

KENNETH R. HENRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00791-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

MOTIONS, AND REQUIRING 

DEFENDANTS CONTRERAS AND 

JOLLEY TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS

(Docs. 16, 23, 26, and 27)

Plaintiff Kenneth Henry (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 23, 2014. This action 

for damages is proceeding against Defendants Jolley,

1 Contreras, and Ortega (“Defendants”) for 

using excessive physical force against Plaintiff in 2013, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of 

the United States Constitution. 

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 13, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 

Recommendations recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 

be denied. Defendants did not file any objections, and Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition 

on July 27, 2015. Local Rule 304(b).

 

1

Identified as Jolly in the complaint.

Case 1:14-cv-00791-LJO-SKO Document 29 Filed 08/10/15 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

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 13, 2015, is adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to strike new allegations in Plaintiff’s opposition is DENIED;

3. Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s surreply is DENIED as moot; 

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, filed on May 6, 2015, is 

DENIED; and

5. Defendants Contreras and Jolley shall file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint within 

fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00791-LJO-SKO Document 29 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 2