Alston v. County of Sacramento Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/27/2017 ORDERING that the 25 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full. The 17 motion to dismiss of defendants Bacoch, Carmello, County of Sacramento, Douglas, Gandhi, Grgich, Jones, and Steed is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ALSTON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-1488 KJM DB P v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 16, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 22 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 26 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 27 ORDERED that: 28 //// 1 1 2 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 16, 2017 (ECF No. 25) are adopted in full; 2. The motion to dismiss of defendants Bacoch, Carmello, County of Sacramento, 4 Douglas, Gandhi, Grgich, Jones, and Steed (ECF No. 17) is granted in part and denied in part as 5 follows: 6 a. The claims against defendants in their official capacities are dismissed; 7 b. All claims against defendant County of Sacramento are dismissed; 8 c. The claims regarding the creation of, or failure to create, policies, practices and 9 10 customs, and the claims of failure to train against defendants Jones and Steed are dismissed; 11 d. All claims against defendants Douglas and Bacoch are dismissed; and 12 e. This case will proceed on plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference and 13 negligence against defendants Jones, Grgich, Steed, Gandhi, and Carmello, as described at 14 pages 10 to 12 of the February 16, 2017 findings and recommendations. 15 DATED: March 27, 2017 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?