Albert John Hamilton Jr v. C. Steeb et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. The Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this memorandum and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil rights Plaintiff is further advised that if he no longer wishes to pursue this action he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff's convenience. (See document for further details). (Attachments: # 1 Civil Rights Complaint Form, # 2 Notice of Dismissal Form) (mr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALBERT JOHN HAMILTON JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. CV 17-5300 ODW (SS)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

v.

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

STEEB, et al.,

LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants.

15
16
17

I.

18

INTRODUCTION

19
20

On

July

18,
a

2017,
state

Plaintiff
prisoner

Albert

proceeding

John
pro

Hamilton
se,

Jr.

21

(“Plaintiff”),

filed

a

22

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with

23

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.

24

Dkt. No. 1).

(“Complaint,”

25
26

Congress mandates that district courts perform an initial

27

screening of complaints in civil actions where a prisoner seeks

28

redress

from

a

governmental

entity

or

employee.

28

U.S.C.

1

§ 1915A(a). This court may dismiss such a complaint, or any portion

2

of it, before service of process if the court concludes that the

3

complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim

4

upon which relief can be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from

5

a defendant who is immune from such relief.

6

For the reasons stated below, the Complaint is DISMISSED with leave

7

to amend.1

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

8
9

II.

10

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

11
12

Plaintiff sues the following employees of the California Men’s

13

Colony State Prison (“CMC”) in their individual capacities only:

14

(1) Correctional

15

(3) Lieutenant

Bookmen;

16

(5) Lieutenant

S.

17

(collectively “Defendants”).

Officer

C.

Steeb;

(4)

Norton;

(2)

Associate

and

(6)

Sergeant
Warden

Lieutenant

E.
J.

Cabreros;
Ingwerson;

A.F.

Martinez

(Compl. at 3-4).

18
19

Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and lack sufficient

20

factual support.

21

asserts that on December 18, 2015, Steeb used “excessive force”

22

while handcuffing him, causing a “medical injury.”

23

Cabreros failed to train CMC staff on how to properly handcuff

24

“(ADA) inmates” such as Plaintiff. (Id. at 5-6). Bookmen, Castelo,

25

Ingwerson,

Plaintiff, who alleges that he is “disabled,”

Norton,

and

Martinez

all

allegedly

(Id. at 5).

had

“personal

26
27
28

Magistrate Judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend
without approval of the District Judge.
See McKeever v. Block,
932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
1

2

1

knowledge” that Plaintiff suffered a “medical injury” because of

2

Steeb’s use of excessive force, “but [they] did nothing.”

3

5).

4

Asuncion, currently the Warden of California State Prison, Los

5

Angeles County, had “personal knowledge of her staff[’s] unusual

6

behavior and refuse[d] to do the (Law).”2

(Id. at

Although not included in the list of Defendants, Debbie

(Id. at 6).

7
8
9

Cabreros filed a “false report” regarding the incident, which
was “granted in part by the CMC-East (AW) D. Samuel.”

(Id. at 5).

10

Norton violated unidentified California Department of Corrections

11

policies and regulations and retaliated against Plaintiff for

12

filing a grievance. (Id. at 5-6).

13

CDCR-Third [sic] Level Appeal Decision, dated October 14, 2016.

14

(Id. at 5).

15

violate his Fourteenth Amendment rights because the “CDCR-RVR

16

[Rules Violation Report]” has not been dismissed “in full.”

Martinez “also violated the

The California Department of Corrections continues to

(Id.).

17
18

Plaintiff

summarily

asserts

that

Defendants

violated

his

19

First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the

20

Constitution, along with violating his “(ADA) Constitution[al]

21

rights.”

22

from each Defendant.

23

\\

24

\\

(Id. at 6).

Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in monetary damages
(Id.).

25
26
27
28

The Court takes notice that, according to the CDCR website,
“Debbie Asuncion has been the Warden or acting Warden at California
State Prison, Los Angeles County, since December 2015.”
See
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Facilities_Locator/LAC.html. It is unclear
whether Asuncion ever worked at CMC, or when.
2

3

1

III.

2

DISCUSSION

3
4

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court dismisses the

5

Complaint due to defects in pleading.

6

rights case, however, must be given leave to amend his or her

7

complaint unless “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of

8

the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.”

9

698

F.3d

1202,

1212

(9th

Cir.

A pro se litigant in a civil

2012)

See Akhtar v. Mesa,

(citation

and

internal

10

quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed,

11

with leave to amend.

12
13

A.

Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim Under The ADA

14
15

Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempts to state a claim for relief

16

under the ADA.

17

entity’ from discriminating against a ‘qualified individual with a

18

disability on account of that individual’s disability,’ [] covers

19

inmates in state prisons,” but the allegations here fail to state

20

a claim.

21

(1998) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12132).

Title II of the ADA, which “prohibits a ‘public

Pennsylvania Dept. of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 208

22
23
24

To state a claim under § 12132 of Title II, a plaintiff must
allege that:

25
26

(1) he is an individual with a disability; (2) he is

27

otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the

28

benefit of some public entity’s services, programs, or
4

1

activities;

2

participation in or denied the benefits of the public

3

entity’s

4

otherwise discriminated against by the public entity;

5

and

6

discrimination was by reason of [his] disability.

(3)

services,

(4)

such

he

was

either

programs,

exclusion,

or

excluded

activities,

denial

of

from

or

benefits,

was

or

7
8

Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir.

9

2010) (quoting McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th

10

Cir. 2004)).

11

ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he has been diagnosed with

12

a condition that substantially limits his life activities.

13

v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998); see also Weaving v. City of

14

Hillsboro, 763 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A 2008 Amendment

15

to the ADA provides, ‘The definition of disability in this chapter

16

shall be construed in favor of broad coverage . . .’ ‘The term

17

‘substantially limits’ shall be interpreted consistently with the

18

[amendment].’”) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A-B)).

In order to allege a qualifying disability under the

Bragdon

19
20

“The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not

21

inadequate treatment for disability.”

22

(emphasis added).

23

under the ADA.

24

(7th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he Act would not be violated by a prison’s

25

simply failing to attend to the medical needs of its disabled

26

prisoners . . . The ADA does not create a remedy for medical

27

malpractice.”).

Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1022

Insufficient medical care does not state a claim

Id.; see also Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249

28
5

1

Here, Plaintiff’s ADA claim fails because the Complaint does

2

not identify Plaintiff’s specific qualifying disability, or allege

3

that Plaintiff was denied access to a governmental benefit because

4

of that disability.

5

is an “(ADA) inmate,” by which he presumably means that he is

6

somehow disabled, and that Steeb injured him while using handcuffs.

7

(Compl. at 5-6).

8

establish that Plaintiff has a qualifying disability; that the

9

prison did not accommodate his disability, which prevented him from

10

enjoying the benefits of services, programs, or activities provided

11

to non-disabled prisoners; and that he was discriminated against

12

because of his disability.

13

dismissed, with leave to amend.

Instead, Plaintiff merely claims that that he

To state an ADA claim, the Complaint must

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ADA claim is

14
15

B.

Plaintiff Fails To State An Excessive Force Claim

16
17

The Complaint broadly claims that Steeb violated Plaintiff’s

18

Eighth Amendment rights because he used excessive force while

19

handcuffing

20

injury.”

Plaintiff,

which

caused

an

unidentified

“medical

(Id. at 5-6).

21
22

The Eighth Amendment governs an inmate’s excessive force claim

23

against prison officials.

24

is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain

25

or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause

26

harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992); see also Martinez

27

v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003) (same).

28

considering a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim “must ask both if

In such a claim, the relevant inquiry

6

Courts

1

‘the officials act[ed] with a sufficiently culpable state of mind’

2

and if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to

3

establish a constitutional violation.”

4

(quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)).

5

established that, in some circumstances, officers may restrain

6

inmates to maintain order.

7

F.3d 1239, 1254 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[M]aintaining institutional

8

security and preserving internal order and discipline are essential

9

goals that may require limitation or retraction of the retained

10

constitutional rights of both convicted prisoners and pretrial

11

detainees.”) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546 (1979)

12

(internal quotation marks omitted)).

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8
It is well

See Mendiola–Martinez v. Arpaio, 836

13
14

The Complaint fails to state an excessive force claim under

15

the

that

any

16

Defendant had the “culpable state of mind” to harm Plaintiff.

The

17

Complaint appears to allege summarily that Steeb used excessive

18

force

19

showing that Steeb put Plaintiff in handcuffs “maliciously and

20

sadistically to cause harm.”

21

that Plaintiff was handcuffed and subsequently suffered some kind

22

of injury does not, by itself, establish that Steeb acted with a

23

“culpable state of mind” or even that the amount of force he used

24

against Plaintiff was actually “excessive”.

25

Complaint must be dismissed, with leave to amend.

26

\\

27

\\

28

\\

Eighth

while

Amendment

because

handcuffing

it

does

Plaintiff,

but

not

establish

does

not

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7.

7

allege

facts

The mere fact

Accordingly, the

1
2

C.

Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim For Deliberate Indifference
To Serious Medical Needs

3
4

The Complaint alleges that Defendants knew Plaintiff suffered

5

a “medical injury” and did nothing.

6

possible

7

deliberate

8

Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim is defective.

that

Plaintiff

indifference

is
to

(Compl. at 2, 5).

attempting
serious

to

medical

state

a

needs.

It is

claim

for

However,

9
10

To state a claim for unconstitutional health care services, a

11

prisoner must demonstrate that the defendants were “deliberately

12

indifferent” to his “serious medical needs.”

13

F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).

To establish a “serious medical

14

need,”

that

15

prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or

16

the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’”

17

at 1096 (citation omitted); see also Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d

18

1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (the existence of a serious medical need

19

is determined by an objective standard).

the

prisoner

must

show

Jett v. Penner, 439

“failure

to

treat

[the]

Jett, 439 F.3d

20
21

To establish “deliberate indifference” to such a need, a

22

prisoner must demonstrate: “(a) a purposeful act or failure to

23

respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm

24

caused by the indifference.”

25

indifference “may appear when prison officials deny, delay or

26

intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown

27

by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.”

28

(citation omitted).

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.

Deliberate

Id.

Yet, an “inadvertent [or negligent] failure
8

1

to provide adequate medical care” alone does not state a claim.

2

Id. (citation omitted).

3

aware

4

disregarded that risk.

5

(1994).

6

treatment” of a prisoner does not state a deliberate indifference

7

claim.

of

a

serious

An

The defendant must have been subjectively

risk

of

harm

and

must

have

consciously

See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 839

“isolated

exception”

to

a

defendant’s

“overall

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.

8
9

Here, Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to show that

10

his unidentified “medical injury” gave rise to a “serious medical

11

need.”

12

not allege that Plaintiff failed to obtain medical treatment, or

13

that any medical treatment he did receive was constitutionally

14

inadequate.

15

allegation that Defendants acted with “deliberate indifference”

16

does not state a claim under the Eighth Amendment.

17

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835.

18

facts to establish that Defendants deprived Plaintiff of treatment

19

for a serious medical need, Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference

20

claim is dismissed, with leave to amend.

Even if Plaintiff’s injury were serious, the Complaint does

(See

Compl.

at

5-6).

Plaintiff’s

conclusory

(Id. at 2);

Because the Complaint fails to state

21
22
23

D.

Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim For Failure To Train And
Supervise

24
25

Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendants Cabreros, Bookmen,

26

Ingwerson, Norton, and Martinez are liable in their supervisory

27

capacity for Steeb’s alleged violations because they “did nothing”

28

when Steeb injured him.

The Complaint also asserts that Cabreros
9

1

failed to properly supervise and train CMC staff on “how to handcuff

2

(ADA) inmates,” and that Asuncion “had personal knowledge of her

3

staff[’s] unusual behavior and refused to [follow] the (law).”

4

(Compl. at 5-6).

5
6

To demonstrate a civil rights action against a government

7

official, a plaintiff must show either the official’s direct,

8

personal participation in the harm, or some sufficiently direct

9

connection

between

the

official’s

conduct

and

the

alleged

10

constitutional violation.

11

06 (9th Cir. 2011).

12

some action against the plaintiff or “set in motion a series of

13

acts by others, or knowingly refused to terminate a series of acts

14

by others, which he knew or reasonably should have known, would

15

cause

16

plaintiff.

17

Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Starr, 409

18

F.3d

19

suffice to show that a supervisor “personally played a role in the

20

alleged constitutional violations.”’) (quoting Menotti v. City of

21

Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005)).

others

at

to

See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-

A supervising officer must personally take

inflict

the

constitutional

injury”

on

the

Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th

1149

(‘“[A]cquiescence

or

culpable

indifference”

may

22
23

Government

officials

may

not

be

held

liable

for

the

24

unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates just because a

25

subordinate caused a plaintiff harm.

26

U.S. 662, 676 (2009).

27

accountable

28

training, supervision, or control of his subordinates, for his

“for

his

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

Rather, a supervisor may only be held
own

culpable

10

action

or

inaction

in

the

1

acquiescence

2

complaint is made, or for conduct that showed a reckless or callous

3

indifference to the rights of others.”

4

County Bd. of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007).

in

the

constitutional

deprivations

of

which

the

Preschooler II v. Clark

5
6

The Complaint does not allege facts sufficient to establish

7

that any Defendant’s failure to train or supervise Steeb led to

8

violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

9

generally asserts that Defendants were aware of Steeb’s alleged

10

misconduct and of Plaintiff’s medical injury, but did “nothing.”

11

(Compl. at 5-6).

12

Defendants played a role in either failing to stop, or setting in

13

motion, Steeb’s alleged wrongful conduct, or in failing to ensure

14

that

15

Plaintiff

16

personally did or did not do, and explain how their action or

17

inaction

18

Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed, with leave to amend.

Plaintiff
must

caused

The Complaint

Such a general assertion fails to explain how

received
state

a

medical

specific

violation

treatment

facts

of

for

showing

Plaintiff’s

his

what

injury.

Defendants

civil

rights.

19
20

E.

Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim For Retaliation

21
22

The Complaint vaguely alleges that Norton retaliated against

23

Plaintiff.

24

minimum pleading requirements for a § 1983 claim alleging that

25

prison employees have retaliated against an inmate for exercising

26

a First Amendment right:

(Compl. at 6).

The Ninth Circuit has set forth the

27
28
11

1

Within the prison context, a viable claim of First

2

Amendment

3

(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse

4

action

5

prisoner’s

6

(4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment

7

rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a

8

legitimate correctional goal.

retaliation

against

an

entails

inmate

protected

(2)

conduct,

five

basic

because
and

that

of

elements:

(3)

such

that

action

9
10

See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-568 (9th Cir. 2005)

11

(footnote omitted).

12

between

13

constitutional right.

14

(9th Cir. 1995).

the

The prisoner must establish a specific link

alleged

retaliation

and

the

exercise

of

a

See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807-08

15
16

The

Complaint

fails

to

state

a

retaliation

claim.

The

17

Complaint vaguely states that Norton “retaliated” against Plaintiff

18

without providing any additional facts showing what Norton did that

19

constituted retaliation. Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff

20

is attempting to raise a retaliation claim against Norton, the

21

claim must be dismissed, with leave to amend.

22
23
24

F.

Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim For A Fourteenth Amendment
Violation

25
26

The Complaint appears to assert that Norton infringed on

27

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by “violat[ing] the laws,

28

regulation[s] and policy of the CDCR.”
12

(Compl. at 5).

These

1

conclusory allegations, which do not even identify which policies

2

and regulations Norton purportedly violated, fail to state a claim

3

under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4
5

The mere violation of state prison protocols is not actionable

6

under § 1983.

7

state a claim under § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege the violation

8

of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United

9

States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed

See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).

To

10

by a person acting under color of state law.”

11

U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (emphasis added; citations omitted).

12

Complaint fails to explain what Norton did to violate Plaintiff’s

13

federal

14

process claim is dismissed, with leave to amend.

constitutional

rights.

West v. Atkins, 487

Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s

The

due

15
16

E.

The Complaint Violates Rule 8

17
18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a

19

complaint contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim

20

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give

21

the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

22

grounds upon which it rests.’”

23

544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted).

24

a pleading “says too little” and “when a pleading says too much.”

25

Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in

26

original); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys.,

27

Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2011) (a complaint violates

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

28
13

Rule 8 may be violated when

1

Rule 8 if a defendant would have difficulty understanding and

2

responding to the complaint).

3
4

The Complaint violates Rule 8 because Plaintiff does not

5

clearly identify the nature of each of his legal claims, the

6

specific

facts

7

specific

Defendant

8

brought.

For example, the Complaint broadly states that Ingwerson,

9

Castelo,

giving
or

Martinez,

rise

to

each

Defendants

Norton,

and

individual

against

Bookmen

whom

claim,
each

merely

or

the

claim

“knew”

is

that

10

Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights had been violated.

11

5).

12

“violated [a] Third Level Appeal Order.”

13

vague assertions do not allege specific facts to establish that

14

any

15

Moreover, the Complaint does not name Castelo or Asuncion as

16

Defendants,

17

individuals

18

Additionally, the Complaint contains confusing allegations, such

19

as the reference to “attached documents,” even though no additional

20

documents were filed with the Complaint, and likely did not need

21

to be.

22

about what Plaintiff believes each Defendant specifically did to

23

violate his rights, Defendants cannot respond to the Complaint.

24

See Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1058-59.

25

dismissed, with leave to amend.

26

\\

27

\\

28

\\

Similarly,

of

these

the

Complaint

individuals

but

includes

violated

vaguely

violated

(See Compl. at 4-5, 8).

that

Martinez

(Compl. at 6).

Plaintiff’s

allegations

Plaintiff’s

asserts

(Compl. at

civil

suggesting

that

constitutional

Such

rights.

these
rights.

Without more specific information

14

Accordingly, the Complaint is

1

IV.

2

CONCLUSION

3
4

For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is dismissed with

5

leave to amend.

6

he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this memorandum

7

and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint.

8

amended complaint, Plaintiff shall cure the defects described

9

above.

If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action,

In any

10
11

Furthermore, Plaintiff shall omit any claims or allegations

12

that are not reasonably related to the claims asserted in the

13

Complaint, but shall instead attempt to cure the deficiencies

14

addressed in this Order.

15

shall be complete in itself and shall bear both the designation

16

“First Amended Complaint” and the case number assigned to this

17

action. It shall not refer in any manner to the original Complaint.

The First Amended Complaint, if any,

18
19

In

any

amended

complaint,

Plaintiff

should

confine

his

20

allegations to the operative facts supporting each of his claims.

21

Plaintiff

22

Procedure 8(a), all that is required is a “short and plain statement

23

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

24

Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil

25

rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of

26

which is attached.

27

identify the nature of each separate legal claim and make clear

28

what specific factual allegations support his claims.

is

advised

that

pursuant

to

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should

15

Plaintiff

1

is strongly encouraged to keep his statements concise and to omit

2

irrelevant details.

3

law or include legal argument.

4

filed several actions at the same time and these actions appear to

5

lack substance in fact and law.

6

frivolous

7

recommendation that he be barred from filing any action as a

8

vexatious litigant.

motions

It is not necessary for Plaintiff to cite case

or

The Court notes that Plaintiff has

Plaintiff is advised that filing

actions

may

ultimately

result

in

a

9
10

Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file

11

a First Amended Complaint, or failure to correct the deficiencies

12

described above, will result in a recommendation that this action

13

be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey Court

14

orders

15

Plaintiff is further advised that if he no longer wishes to pursue

16

this action he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of

17

Dismissal

in

18

41(a)(1).

A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff’s

19

convenience.

pursuant

to

Federal Rule

accordance

with

of

Federal

Civil

Rule

of

Procedure

Civil

41(b).

Procedure

20
21

DATED:

August 15, 2017

22
23
/S/
__________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27

THIS DECISION IS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN LEXIS, WESTLAW OR
ANY OTHER LEGAL DATABASE.

28
16