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.

Murillo v. Taylor

United States District Court, S.D. California

July 22, 2015

RAMON MURILLO, Plaintiff,
v.
TAYLOR, et. al., Defendant.

ORDER

WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 32) issued by United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo, recommending that this Court grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. Id. at 3, 20.

I. Background

On October 31, 2012, Plaintiff commenced an action in this Court, case no. 12-cv-2642 WQH (WVG), by filing a Complaint pursuant to Section 1983 against Defendants T. Taylor ("Taylor"), Rucker, Owens, E. Solis ("Solis"), J. Cedano ("Cedano"), J. Elias ("Elias"), R. Davis ("Davis"), R. Cobb ("Cobb"), Ives, C. Hamilton ("Hamilton"), D. Strayhorn ("Strayhorn"), L. Romero ("Romero"), D. Fuston ("Fuston"), T. Goff ("Goff"), Reed ("Reid"), T. Hernandez ("Hernandez"), Daniel Paramo ("Paramo"), CDCR Dental, and Pickett. (Case No. 12-cv-2642 WQH (WVG), ECF. No. 1). On May 30, 2013, Defendants a Motion to Dismiss and for Severance of Parties and Claims. (Case No. 12-cv-2642 WQH (WVG), ECF. No. 36). On October 15, 2013, this Court issued an Order stating that:

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby:

1) DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.8 and S.D. CIVLR 8.2;
2) DENIES Defendants' Motion to Sever Claims pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 18 and 20;
3) DISMISSES Defendants Dental Dept and CDCR Dental Department, without prejudice pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(2);
4) Sua sponte DISMISSES all claims against Defendants Davis and Picket for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A;
5) Issues an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE no later than thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed why the claims against Defendant Hamilton should not be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m). If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with documentation demonstrating proper service on Defendant Hamilton within thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed, the claims against Defendant Hamilton in this action will be dismissed without prejudice.

(Case No. 12-cv-2642 WQH (WVG), ECF. No. 47).

On November 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a non-opposition to the Court's OSC. (Case No. 12-cv-2642 WQH (WVG), ECF. No. 53). On November 8, 2013, the Court dismissed Defendant Hamilton from the First Action. (Case No. 12-cv-2642 WQH (WVG), ECF. No. 55).

On November 22, 2013, Defendants Elias, Cedano, Cobb, Davis, Foston, Goff, Hernandez, Ives, Owens, Paramo, Romero, Rucker, Solis, Strayhorn, and Taylor filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Compliant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Case No. 12-cv-2642 WQH (WVG), ECF. No. 61). On November, 26, 2013, Defendant Reid filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Compliant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On February 26, 2014, this Court issued an Order granting both Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Case No. 12-cv-2642 WQH (WVG), ECF. No. 89).

On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's ruling before the Ninth Circuit. (Case No. 12-cv-2642 WQH (WVG), ECF. No. 91).

On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced the present action by filing a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to Section 1983 against Defendants Taylor, Rucker, Owens, Solis, Cedano, Elias, Davis, Cobb, Ives, and Jannush. On August 14, 2014, all Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as Duplicative of an Existing Action. (ECF No. 13). On November 14, 2014, Plaintiff ...


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.