Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taek Samuel Yoon v. John Doe

January 17, 2013

TAEK SAMUEL YOON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN DOE, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIRGINIA A. Phillips United States District Judge

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; and ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C), the court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint and other papers along with the attached Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and has made a de novo determination of the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted.

2. Plaintiff's official capacity damages claims against defendants Saaveda, E. Gray, Durant, Demase, and Scott, his Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Oden, and his Fourteenth Amendment property deprivation claim against defendant Pinedo, are dismissed without leave to amend.

3. The remainder of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff is not permitted to add claims or defendants to an amended pleading without first seeking leave of court to do so. Specifically, Plaintiff may, if he chooses, amend the following claims only:

a. First Amendment retaliation against defendants Pinedo, Durant, Saaveda, Gray, Pearson, and Le only;

b. Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical or dental needs against defendants Doe, Lee, Le, and Raju only;

c. Eighth Amendment failure to protect against defendants Pinedo, Durant, Saaveda, Gray, and Pearson only;

d. First Amendment access to the courts against defendant Demase only, and;

e. Fourteenth Amendment equal protection against defendant Scott only.

If Plaintiff wishes to pursue the remainder of this action in this court, he must file a second amended complaint within thirty days of the date this Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation is filed. The amended complaint, bearing the number CV 11-6792-VAP (SH), must be a complete and independent document and must not refer to prior pleadings. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file a second amended complaint within the time specified by this Order may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice on the grounds stated in the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and/or for failure to prosecute.

In preparing a second amended complaint, plaintiff must bear in mind the deficiencies of the current pleading, and must assure that they are not repeated. Plaintiff must take ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.