Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01473-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian C. Applegate
Plaintiff
Louis Moreno, Jr.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

BRIAN C. APPLEGATE,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOUIS MORENO, JR.

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01473-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

(1) TO DISMISS NON-COGNIZABLE 

CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE, AND

(2) TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO 

RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 10)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action initially was filed on May 29, 2015 in the 

Superior Court of California, County of Kings. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant removed the 

action to this Court on September 28, 2015. (Id.) Along with his notice of removal, 

Defendant asked that the Court screen Plaintiff’s complaint and allow Defendant thirty 

days following the Court’s screening order to respond. The matter was referred to a 

Case 1:15-cv-01473-LJO-MJS Document 11 Filed 06/22/16 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

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 May 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint, and found 

that it stated the following cognizable claims for damages against Defendant Moreno: 

Eighth Amendment failure to protect, First Amendment retaliation, Bane Act, ordinary 

negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of 

emotional distress. (ECF No. 8.) However, the Magistrate Judge concluded that 

Plaintiff’s remaining claims were not cognizable. Plaintiff was given the option to either 

file an amended complaint or to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. (Id.) 

Plaintiff responded that he wished to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (ECF 

No. 9.) The Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations for Plaintiff to 

proceed on his cognizable claims, for the non-cognizable claims to be dismissed with 

prejudice, and for Defendant to be called to respond to the complaint within thirty days of 

the order adopting the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 10.) No objections were 

filed and the time for doing so has passed.

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 Court adopts the findings and recommendations, filed June 3, 2016,

(ECF No. 10), in full;

2. Plaintiff shall proceed against Defendant Moreno on the following claims 

for damages: Eighth Amendment failure to protect, First Amendment 

retaliation, Bane Act, ordinary negligence, intentional infliction of emotional 

distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress; 

3. All other claims asserted in the complaint are dismissed with prejudice; and

Case 1:15-cv-01473-LJO-MJS Document 11 Filed 06/22/16 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

4. Defendant shall file an answer or motion within thirty (30) days from the 

date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

5.

Case 1:15-cv-01473-LJO-MJS Document 11 Filed 06/22/16 Page 3 of 3