(PC)Sandoval v. Lopez et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING 43 Findings and Recommendations,GRANTING 24 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend, and Terminating Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend as Moot, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 01/08/2025. Second Amended Complaint due within Sixty-Days. (Deputy Clerk CM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JULIO SANDOVAL,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. LOPEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-0248 JLT SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND, AND TERMINATING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND AS MOOT
(Docs. 24, 43, 44)

16
17

Julio Sandoval seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his rights under the

18

Eighth Amendment while housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. (See

19

Doc. 16.) Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, asserting Plaintiff

20

failed to state a cognizable claim and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 24.)

21

The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that Defendants acted

22

with deliberate indifference. (Doc. 43 at 8-13.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended

23

the Court grant the motion to dismiss. (Id. at 13.) Based upon the finding that dismissal for

24

failure to state a claim was appropriate, the magistrate judge declined to address to address the

25

issue of qualified immunity. (Id. at 13-14.) The magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff filed the

26

FAC before the Court had an opportunity to screen the original complaint, and Plaintiff was “not

27

previously… advised of any defects in a complaint.” (Id. at 14, n. 5.) Accordingly, the

28

magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff be granted leave to amend. (Id. at 14.)

1

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that

2

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 43 at 14.) The Court advised the parties the

3

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on

4

appeal.” (Id. at 14-15, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).)

5

Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. However,

6

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint on December 30, 2024, which includes a

7

request that he be granted 60 days to amend. (Doc. 45.)

8

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

9

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations

10

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

11

1.

12

The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 17, 2024 (Doc. 43) are
ADOPTED in full.

13

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 24) is GRANTED, with leave to amend.

14

3.

Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days

15

of the date of this order.

16

4.

The motion for leave to amend (Doc. 45) is terminated as MOOT.

17

Failure to file an amended complaint as ordered will result in dismissal without

18

prejudice failure to prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2025

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2