Vasquez v. Mayberg et al
Filing
83
ORDER ADOPTING 82 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DISMISSING ACTION; and ORDER DENYING 72 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/30/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GEORGE VASQUEZ,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:10-cv-01973-DAD-JDP
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
PAM AHLIN, et al.,
(Doc. No. 82)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff George Vasquez is a former civil detainee at the Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”)
18
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
19
§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
20
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On September 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
22
recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed (1) as moot and (2) due to
23
plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order. (Doc. No. 82.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found
24
that plaintiff’s due process claim—challenging a California Department of State Hospitals
25
(“DSH”) regulation that restricted his access to certain electronic devices—was mooted by DSH’s
26
amendment to that regulation in 2018 to allow patients to possess otherwise prohibited electronic
27
devices under supervision. (Id. at 3–6.) In this court’s September 30, 2018 order adopting the
28
magistrate judge’s August 31, 2018 findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of
1
1
plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) as moot, the undersigned adopted in full the
2
magistrate judge’s finding that the FAC had been rendered moot by the 2018 amendment to the
3
challenged regulation as well as the recommendation that plaintiff be permitted leave to file a
4
second amended complaint to “address[] the harm allegedly caused by violation of his due
5
process rights from the implementation of [the challenged regulation], as amended in 2018.”
6
(Doc. Nos. 60, 66.) As the pending findings and recommendations note, however, “months have
7
passed since the court asked for an amended complaint from plaintiff, and he has not amended his
8
complaint.” (Doc. No. 82 at 1.) Accordingly, the pending finding and recommendations
9
recommend the dismissal of this action due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order. Finally, the
10
findings and recommendation recommend dismissing plaintiff’s motion to stay (Doc. No. 72)
11
these proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision on plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal because
12
(1) the Ninth Circuit “has already rejected his arguments” and found that his due process claim
13
was moot and (2) an “interlocutory appeal ordinarily does not warrant a stay of proceedings.”
14
(Doc. No. 82 at 11) (citing California v. Azar, 911 F/3d 558, 584 (9th Cir. 2018). The findings
15
and recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days.
16
(Doc. No. 82 at 14.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed,
17
and the time to do so has since passed.1
18
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local Rule
19
304, the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the
20
entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
21
proper analysis.
22
Accordingly:
23
1.
24
The findings and recommendations issued on September 11, 2019 (Doc. No. 82)
are adopted in full;
25
26
27
28
The court notes that plaintiff filed a response to the court’s November 20, 2018 order to show
cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot. (See Doc. Nos. 75, 79.) Therein, plaintiff
argued that this action has not been rendered moot. Although his arguments in this regard are not
proper objections to the pending findings and recommendations, they are addressed in the
findings and recommendations and therefore need not be addressed again here.
2
1
1
2.
This action is dismissed as having been rendered moot by DSH’s 2018 amendment
2
to the challenged regulation and due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
3
court’s orders;
4
3.
Plaintiff’s motion to stay (Doc. No. 72) is denied; and
5
4.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 30, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?