Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391-32/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 ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

DISMISSING NON-COGNIZABLE 

CLAIMS

(ECF Nos. 111, 114)

DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSIVE 

PLEADING OR MOTION WITHIN 

FOURTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On February 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s fourth amended 

complaint and found that it states a cognizable Eighth Amendment medical indifference

claim for damages against Defendants Kokor and Sunduram, but no other cognizable 

claims. (ECF No. 114.) The Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations for 

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 116 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 3
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 to proceed on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for damages and for 

dismissal of the remaining claims. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 115.) 

Defendants filed no response. 

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, with the exception of Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief. The Court will 

adopt the findings and recommendations in part as explained below.

The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive 

relief on the ground that it appeared that Plaintiff had transferred to another institution 

and was no longer under the care of Defendants. (ECF No. 114 at 7.) The Magistrate 

Judge noted that Plaintiff was housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment 

Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California, but complained of acts that occurred at 

Corcoran State Prison. In his objections, Plaintiff states that the events at issue occurred 

at CSATF, where he remains housed. A review of the fourth amended complaint and the 

docket supports Plaintiff’s contention. While the complaint at times states the Defendants 

are at “Corcoran,” which may have been misconstrued as indicating Corcoran State 

Prison, it also states that the events occurred at CSATF. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to state a cognizable claim for injunctive 

relief.1 Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed on this claim. 

In all other respects, Plaintiff’s objections do not raise an issue of fact or law 

under the findings and recommendations.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts in part the findings and recommendations, filed February 

10, 2017 (ECF No. 114); 

 

1

To the extent Plaintiff wishes to request preliminary injunctive relief, he may file a motion seeking same. 

The Court does not herein address Plaintiff’s request that “this court . . . honor the pain management 

guide/lines.” 

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 116 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. Plaintiff shall proceed on his Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim 

for damages and injunctive relief against Defendants Kokor and Sunduram;

3. All other claims asserted in the fourth amended complaint are DISMISSED 

without leave to amend, and

4. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading or motion within fourteen days 

of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2017 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 116 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 3