Marguise Caliz et al v. City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 121

ORDER ACCEPTING INTERIM FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Josephine L. Staton for NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to AMEND Complaint (Prisoner Civil Rights), 1 102 , Report and Recommendation (Issued) 110 . The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall file, within 30 days of the date of this Order, EITHER: a signed document entitled Notice Of Intent Not To File Second Amended Complaint or a Motion for Leave to Amend and a proposed Second Amended Complaint (see order for further details). (hr)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MARQUISE CALIZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) ) CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al, ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) NO. CV 15-5161-JLS (KS) ORDER ACCEPTING INTERIM FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint (the 19 “Complaint”), all of the records herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended 20 Complaint (the “Motion”) and the parties’ related briefing, the November 3, 2017 Interim 21 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), Plaintiff’s 22 Objections to the Report, and Defendant’s Statement of Non-Objection. Pursuant to 28 23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review 24 of those portions of the Report to which objections have been stated. Having completed its 25 review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. 26 27 28 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in 2 part as follows: 3 (1) The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s proposed addition of an 4 Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Victor Benavidez, in his 5 individual capacity, and an Eighth Amendment failure to intervene claim against 6 Viet Tran, in his individual capacity; 7 (2) amendments; 8 9 The Motion is DENIED with respect to all of Plaintiff’s other proposed (3) The Defendants sued in connection with the August 16, 2013 assault, except for 10 Defendant Simms and the two former Doe Defendants now named as Defendant 11 Benavidez and Defendant Tran, are DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave 12 to amend; and 13 (4) The Defendants sued in connection with events occurring in 2014, including the 14 Doe Defendant now identified as Sergeant Argueta, are DISMISSED without 15 prejudice to Plaintiff initiating a separate action against one or more of these 16 individuals. 17 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay on substantive motions is LIFTED and 19 Plaintiff and Defendant Simms shall file their substantive motions, if any, within 30 days of 20 the date of this Order. 21 Finally, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file, within 30 days of the date of this 22 23 Order, EITHER: 24 (1) A signed document entitled Notice Of Intent Not To File Second Amended 25 Complaint expressing Plaintiff’s wish to proceed only on the remaining claims in 26 this action – namely, the Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Simms, 27 Benavidez, and Tran in their individual capacity; OR 28 1 (2) A Motion for Leave to Amend and a proposed Second Amended Complaint that (i) 2 names as defendants all of the individuals whom Plaintiff wishes to hold liable for 3 the August 16, 2013 assault, including Defendants Simms, Benavidez, and Tran 4 and (ii) details each named defendant’s involvement in Plaintiff’s allegations but 5 does not attempt to add new claims against Defendant Simms or claims concerning 6 events occurring in 2014. 7 8 9 DATED: March 6, 2018 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ________________________________ JOSEPHINE L. STATON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?