Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02095/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02095-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sandar Aung
Defendant
Brian Beinlick
Plaintiff
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Defendant
County of San Joaquin
Defendant
Alexander Liu
Defendant
Monivirin Son
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN BEINLICK,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALEXANDER LIU, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-02095-DAD-AC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN 

PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 16, 24, 29)

Plaintiff Brian Beinlick is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel in this civil rights 

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On September 28, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 16, 24) be 

granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 29.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded 

that plaintiff’s operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) states cognizable claims against 

defendants Dr. Alexander Liu and Dr. Sandar Aung, but not against defendants Dr. Monivirin 

Son, County of San Joaquin, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(“CDCR”). (Id. at 4–12.) The magistrate judge also concluded that the granting of leave to 

amend would be futile because “[t]he SAC is the third pleading prepared by counsel, and it states 

no viable claim against San Joaquin County, CDCR, or Dr. Son” and “[p]laintiff has not indicated 

Case 2:19-cv-02095-DAD-AC Document 30 Filed 12/05/22 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

that any additional facts exist that could be added by amendment to cure” the defects identified by 

the magistrate judge. (Id. at 13.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on the 

parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days 

after service. (Id. at 13.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now 

passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 28, 2022 (Doc. No. 29) 

are adopted in full;

2. The motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants Dr. Alexander Liu and San 

Joaquin County (Doc. No. 16) is granted in part and denied in part;

a. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant San Joaquin County are dismissed 

without leave to amend;

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against defendant Dr. Liu 

is denied;

3. The motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants Dr. Sandar Aung, Dr. 

Monivirin Son, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(Doc. No. 24) is granted in part and denied in part;

a. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Dr. Son and the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are dismissed without leave 

to amend;

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against defendant Dr. 

Aung is denied;

4. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s claims against defendants Dr. Liu and 

Dr. Aung;

/////

Case 2:19-cv-02095-DAD-AC Document 30 Filed 12/05/22 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

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendants 

Dr. Monivirin Son, County of San Joaquin, and the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation have been terminated as named defendants in this 

action; and

6. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02095-DAD-AC Document 30 Filed 12/05/22 Page 3 of 3