Giddens v. City of Suisun et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/17/2014 ADOPTING IN FULL 19 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART 6 Motion to Dismiss. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD GIDDENS,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0943 TLN AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CITY OF SUISUN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On October 20, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

20

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

21

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 19.) Neither

22

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

23

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

24

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

25

ORDERED that:

26

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 20, 2014, are adopted in full;

27

2. Defendants’ September 2, 2014, motion to dismiss, ECF NO. 6, is GRANTED IN

28

PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1

1

a. GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s third (Conspiracy), fourth (Equal Protection), fifth

2

(Unconstitutional Policy), thirteenth (Dilution of Vote) and fourteenth (Dilution of

3

Representation) causes of action, with leave to amend;

4

b. GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s seventh (Malicious Prosecution) cause of action, without

5

leave to amend;
c. GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s eleventh (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

6
7

cause of action, without leave to amend insofar as it is predicated on malicious prosecution but

8

without prejudice to an Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim based on injuries

9

outside the scope of Cal. Gov. Code § 821.6 immunity;
d. GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s twelfth (Separation of Powers) cause of action, without

10
11

leave to amend insofar as it is predicated on Article 3 Section 3 of the California Constitution, but

12

without prejudice to a related claim with a different legal basis; and
e. DENIED as to Plaintiff’s sixth (Failure to Train, Supervise, and Discipline) cause of

13
14

action.

15

Dated: November 17, 2014

16
17
18
19

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2