Hanna v. Mariposa County Sheriff Dept. et al

Filing 117

ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF Nos. 85 , 92 , 105 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 115 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/18/2014. It is ORDERED that: The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 5, 2014, is ADOPTED IN FULL. The Motion to Dismiss filed December 31, 2013 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: Defendants motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata is GRANTED as to Defendant Mariposa County Sheriff Department, and DENIED as to Defenda nts Boehm, Rumfelt, Rameriz, and King; Defendants motion to dismiss for improper service on the individual Defendants is GRANTED, and the United States Marshal shall be ordered to re-serve the summons and complaint; Defendants motion to dismiss the p unitive damages claim against Defendant Mariposa County Sheriff Department is GRANTED;Defendants motion to dismiss on all other grounds is DENIED; and This action is referred back to the magistrate judge to initiate service of process on Defendants Boehm, Rumfelt, Rameriz, and King. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(ECF Nos. 85, 92, 105, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115)
MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.
et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiff Richard Charles Hanna is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 5 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations
recommending granting in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata
which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to
the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff
filed an Objection. On July 3, 2014, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objection.
Plaintiff’s objections are not persuasive.

In the main, Plaintiff’s objections are a

reiteration of his attempts to set aside the judgment in related case 1:12cv1885 AWI SAB.
However, the issue of whether the judgment should be set aside has been decided, and the
judgment in 1:12cv1885 AWI SAB will not be set aside. Plaintiff presented evidence at a hearing

25

and objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. The Court considered the

26

findings and recommendation, the evidence, and Plaintiff’s objections and it ruled against

27

Plaintiff. The Court will not entertain further motions or argument on the topic.

28
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the

3

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4
5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 5, 2014, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

7

2.

The Motion to Dismiss filed December 31, 2013 is GRANTED IN PART and

8
9

DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata is GRANTED as to

10

Defendant Mariposa County Sheriff Department, and DENIED as to Defendants

11

Boehm, Rumfelt, Rameriz, and King;

12

b.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper service on the individual Defendants

13

is GRANTED, and the United States Marshal shall be ordered to re-serve the

14

summons and complaint;

15

c.

16

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim against Defendant
Mariposa County Sheriff Department is GRANTED;

17

d.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss on all other grounds is DENIED; and

18

3.

This action is referred back to the magistrate judge to initiate service of process on

19

Defendants Boehm, Rumfelt, Rameriz, and King.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 18, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2