Samuels v. Ahlin et al

Filing 88

ORDER Granting in Part the County of Fresno's 53 Motion to Quash Service of Process or to Dismiss Plaintiff's Action in the Alternative signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/28/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DOUGAL SAMUELS

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
PAM AHLIN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART THE
COUNTY OF FRESNO’S MOTION TO
QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS OR TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IN THE
ALTERNATIVE (Doc. No. 53.)
(Doc. No. 53.)

16
17

Dougal Samuels (“plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 20, 2017, defendant

19

County of Fresno filed a motion to quash service of process or, in the alternative, to dismiss

20

plaintiff’s action. (Doc. No. 53.)

21

Plaintiff has asserted various claims in connection with contracting Valley Fever while

22

housed at Coalinga State Hospital. Initially, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed at the screening

23

stage for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff appealed and the United States Court of

24

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part and remanded, stating that “dismissal of Samuel’s

25

safe conditions claim was premature” and that plaintiff “is not barred from bringing suit against

26

the members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in their official capacity.” (Doc. No. 22

27

at 3.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on July 15, 2016. (Doc. No. 40.)

28

/////
1

1

In its pending motion to quash service of process or to dismiss plaintiff’s action, the

2

defendant County asserts that the Fresno County Board of Supervisors (“FCBS”) is a sub-unit of

3

the County of Fresno and thus does not constitute a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.

4

(Doc. No. 53 at 1–4.) The County also argues that it was erroneously served because it is not a

5

named defendant in this action. (Doc. No. 53 at 4–5.) The magistrate judge assigned to this

6

action held a hearing on the County’s pending motion (Doc. No. 68) and subsequently issued an

7

order requiring plaintiff to notify the court if he wished to substitute the County of Fresno or any

8

other defendants in place of the FCBS. (Doc. No. 70.) Plaintiff filed a notice of non-substitution

9

of defendants on May 22, 2017. (Doc. No. 71.)

10

On July 24, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

11

recommending that plaintiff’s claim against defendant FCBS be dismissed because it is not a

12

“person” under § 1983 and that the County of Fresno’s motion to quash service of process be

13

granted. (Doc. No. 74). Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc.

14

No. 75.) However, therein plaintiff did not actually object to the recommendation set forth in the

15

findings and recommendations. Instead, he merely asked for additional time so that he could

16

identify the appropriate defendants. (Id. at 2.) The County of Fresno filed a reply to plaintiff’s

17

objections. (Doc. No. 77.)

18

The magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s request for an extension of time and gave plaintiff

19

thirty days to file additional objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 76.) The

20

order stated that plaintiff could “identify the defendants he wants to substitute into the case, and

21

request that he be allowed to substitute them into the case.” (Id. at 1-2).

22

Instead of filing additional objections, Plaintiff filed a motion to submit the names of the

23

individuals that make up the FCBS. (Doc. No. 79.) The magistrate judge vacated the findings

24

and recommendations issued on July 24, 2017, granted plaintiff’s motion, and Supervisors Brian

25

Pacheco (representative of District 1), Sal Quintero (representative of District 3), Andreas

26

Borgeas (representative of District 2), Nathan Magsig (representative of district 5), and Buddy

27

Mendes (representative of District 4) were substituted into the case as defendants in place of

28

defendant FCBS. (Doc. No. 84.)
2

1

Since the FCBS is no longer a named defendant in this action, having been voluntarily

2

dismissed by plaintiff (Doc. No. 84 at 4, n.3) the court will deny the County of Fresno’s motion to

3

dismiss the FCBS from this action as having been rendered moot. The court will, however, grant

4

the County of Fresno’s motion to quash service of process on the County of Fresno, because it

5

was not and is not a named defendant in this action.

6

Accordingly:

7

1.

dismiss plaintiff’s action (Doc. No. 53) is granted in part;

8
9

2.

10
11

14

The County of Fresno’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 53) the FCBS is denied as
having been rendered moot; and

3.

12
13

The County of Fresno’s motion to quash service of process or, in the alternative, to

The County of Fresno’s motion to quash service is process (Doc. No. 53) is
granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 28, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3