Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail, et al

Filing 145

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 04/16/18 ORDERING the dismissals of defendants Palmer, Lopez and Nelson and plaintiff's claims related to his housing assignment, failure to protect, defamation and officers trying to incite something 24 , 109 are VACATED. The clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendant Palmer and plaintiff's claims related to his housing assignment, failure to protect, defamation, and officers "trying to incite something" be dismissed without leave to amend for the reasons set forth in the 08/12/13 screening order 24 . Defendants Lopez and Nelson be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service of process an failure to follow court orders as set forth in the 10/18/16 order 109 . Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRELL D. HALL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-0324 AC P

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
In light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir.

17
18

2017) (no magistrate judge jurisdiction based on plaintiff’s consent alone), the dismissal of

19

defendant Palmer and plaintiff’s claims related to his housing assignment, failure to protect,

20

defamation, and officers “trying to incite something” will be vacated, and for the reasons outlined

21

in the August 12, 2013 screening order (ECF No. 24), the undersigned will recommend to the

22

assigned District Judge that defendant Palmer and plaintiff’s claims related to his housing

23

assignment, failure to protect, defamation, and officers “trying to incite something” be dismissed

24

without leave to amend. The dismissal of defendants Lopez and Nelson for failure to timely

25

effect service will also be vacated, and for the reasons set forth in the October 18, 2016 order

26

(ECF No. 109), the undersigned will recommend that Lopez and Nelson be dismissed without

27

prejudice.

28

////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The dismissals of defendants Palmer, Lopez, and Nelson and plaintiff’s claims related

3

to his housing assignment, failure to protect, defamation, and officers “trying to incite something”

4

(ECF Nos. 24, 109) are vacated.

5
6

2. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this
action.

7

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:

8

1. Defendant Palmer and plaintiff’s claims related to his housing assignment, failure to

9
10
11

protect, defamation, and officers “trying to incite something” be dismissed without leave to
amend for the reasons set forth in the August 12, 2013 screening order (ECF No. 24).
2. Defendants Lopez and Nelson be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely

12

effect service of process and failure to follow court orders as set forth in the October 18, 2016

13

order (ECF No. 109).

14

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

15

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

16

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

17

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

18

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that

19

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

20

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED: April 16, 2018

23
24
25
26
27
28
2