Leos v. Rasey et al
ORDER Adopting 62 Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses re 51 , 52 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/27/17. 21-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:14-cv-02029-LJO-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’
RASEY, et al.,
(Docs. 51, 52, 62)
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff, James Leos, is a state prisoner proceeding 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 March 2, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations (F&R) on
Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses, which recommended to grant
Plaintiff’s motion and strike Defendants’ sixth affirmative defense with leave to amend and to
deny Plaintiff’s motion as to Defendants’ first, second, third, and fourth affirmative defenses.
(Doc. 62.) This was served on the parties that same day and contained notice that any objections
to it were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) Plaintiff requested and was granted an extension
of time to file objections, with which he complied. (Docs. 64, 65, 67.)
In his objections, Plaintiff repeats statements of law with legal citations from the F&R,
(compare Doc. 67, p. 2 with Doc. 62, p. 2), and then, as asserted in his motion, argues that
Defendants’ affirmative defenses one through four lack factual basis.1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 2, 2017 (Doc. 62), is adopted in
Plaintiff’s motion to strike is GRANTED as to Defendants’ Sixth Affirmative
Defense, which is STRICKEN with leave to amend and is DENIED as to
Defendants’ First, Second, Third, and Fourth Affirmative Defenses;
If Defendants desire to amend their Sixth Affirmative Defense, they SHALL do so
within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order; and
This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
March 27, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff correctly notes that Defendants’ First Amended Answer contained only six affirmative defenses, not
twelve as noted in the F&R. This typographical error is of no consequence to the substantive analysis in the F&R.
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?