Trujillo v. Munoz

Filing 46

ORDER adopting 44 Findings and Recommendations, dismissing certain claims and defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/6/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
C/O MUNOZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01215-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. Nos. 44, 45)

17

Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

Previously, this action was dismissed for the failure to state a cognizable claim, on May 17,

21

2016. (Doc. No. 21.) On February 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded

22

the action to this Court. (Doc. No. 30.) Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found that all the parties,

23

including unserved defendants, had not consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge,

24

and therefore the dismissal order was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings

25

pursuant to Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017). (Id.) The Ninth Circuit’s mandate

26

was issued on August 3, 2018. (Doc. No. 33.)

27

Following an additional amendment of Plaintiff’s complaint, on September 25, 2018, the

28

assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed
1

1

on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants Munoz and Alvarez for cruel and unusual

2

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment,

3

and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 44.) Plaintiff was notified and given

4

sixty (60) days to file his objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id. at 8.) On October 11,

5

2018, Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 45.)1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the

6
7

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case, including Plaintiff’s objection.

8

undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper

9

analysis.

The

10

Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of this claim against Officer John Doe, asserting that he can

11

state sufficient facts to state a claim. However, Plaintiff has been provided the legal standards and been

12

given multiple opportunities to state such a claim. The statements in his objection are conclusory, and

13

do not show that he can sufficiently state such a claim. Therefore, it is appropriate to dismiss that

14

unnamed defendant. See Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (denying leave to

15

amend when additional amendment would be futile); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th. Cir.

16

2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987).

17

Plaintiff also states that he seeks a polygraph examination of Defendants. Section 3293 of Title

18

15, cited to by Plaintiff, provides for the administration of a polygraph exam by prison officials during

19

a prison investigation. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3293 (2009). The section has no applicability to this

20

civil suit in federal court. There is no entitlement to the administration of polygraph examinations in

21

this action, and Plaintiff's request is therefore denied.

22

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1.

adopted in full;

24
25

The findings and recommendations issued on September 25, 2018 (Doc. No. 44), are

///

26
27
1

28

Plaintiff was given a lengthy period of time to file objections based on information that he would
have some limitations on his access to his legal paperwork. (See Doc. No. 44, at 2.)
2

1

2.

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants Munoz

2

and Alvarez for cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and

3

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

4

3.

relief may be granted; and

5
6
7

All other claims and defendants are dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which

4.

This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3