Davila v. Smith

Filing 23

ORDER FOLLOWING APPEAL; ORDER DISMISSING Federal Claims with Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim and Dismissing State Law Claims without Prejudice signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 05/15/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CHARLES DAVILA,

11

Plaintiff,

ORDER FOLLOWING APPEAL

Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL CLAIMS
WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM AND DISMISSING
STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

12
13
14

1:15-cv-00094-LJO-EPG-PC

vs.
D. SMITH,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff Charles Davila (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
commencing this action on January 20, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on June 25, 2015. (ECF No. 10.)
On July 26, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) that Plaintiff’s federal claims dismissed with prejudice, and
Plaintiff’s state claims dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff objected to the
Findings and Recommendation on August 11, 2016. (EF No. 13.)
The Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full by the undersigned judge on
August 19, 2016. (ECF No. 14.) The Order adopting the Findings and Recommendations
stated that “[t]his action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim

28
1

1

upon which relief may be granted under § 1983” (Id.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on

2

August 26, 2016. (ECF No. 16.)

3

On March 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a

4

Memorandum affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding the case. (ECF No. 21.) The

5

Ninth Circuit held that this Court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims and did not

6

abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law

7

claims. (Id. at 2-3) However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment “to the extent it dismisses

8

Davila’s state law claims with prejudice” and remanded the case “for the sole purpose of

9

dismissing the state law claims without prejudice.” (Id. at 3.)

10

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

11

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e), this action is dismissed for

12

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983, with Plaintiff’s federal

13

claims dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiff’s state claims dismissed without prejudice.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 15, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2