Ramirez v. Bakersfield Police Dept., et al.
Filing
27
ORDER DISMISSING Certain Claims; ORDER TERMINATING Defendants' 12 Motion to Dismiss as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/1/2014. Defendant Bakersfield Police Department terminated. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTONIO RAMIREZ, JR.,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
17
v.
BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPT. et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00978 - JLT
ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS
ORDER TERMINATING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
Previously, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint for civil rights violations arising under 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983 and determined Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for excessive force in violation of the
19
Fourteenth Amendment against Officers Petris and Roberts. (Doc. 5.) However, Plaintiff failed to
20
state a cognizable claim for a violation of the Fifth Amendment or a violation of equal protection
21
under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 4-6.) Further, Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the
22
Bakersfield Police Department, because Plaintiff failed to set forth any factual allegations to suggest
23
that an unconstitutional custom or policy caused his injuries. (Id. at 7.)
24
After the Court issued its order explaining the deficiencies of Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff
25
notified the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the claim found cognizable. (Doc. 7.)
26
Accordingly, the Court authorized service of the complaint to defendants Petris and Roberts. (Doc. 8.)
27
Because the action was not assigned to a District Judge, Plaintiff’s claims were not dismissed by the
28
Court. Now, however, all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant
1
1
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Docs. 19-20, 25-26.) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2
1.
Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of the Fifth Amendment is DISMISSED;
3
2.
Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment is DISMISSED;
4
5
3.
The Bakersfield Police Department is DISMISSED as a defendant;
6
4.
The action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment; and
7
8
5.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss1 (Doc. 12) is terminated as MOOT.
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 1, 2014
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendants assert that Plaintiff “fails to allege a statutory mechanism to allege a violation of his Constitutional
right.” (Doc. 12.) However, on the face of the complaint, Plaintiff indicates that his complaint is filed pursuant to the
“Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) Because the Court addressed the deficiencies of Plaintiff’s complaint
previously, and Plaintiff agreed to abandon the challenged claims, Defendants’ motion is moot.
2
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?