Giddens v. City of Suisun et al

Filing 37

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/23/2015 ADOPTING IN FULL 35 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 27 Motion to Dismiss as to the Equal Protection claim (Claim 3); DENYING 27 Motion to Dismiss as to the First Amendment claim (Claim 4); GRANTING 27 Motion to Dismiss as to the conspiracy claim (Claim 5); GRANTING 27 Motion to Dismiss as to the failure to prevent the conspiracy claim (Claim 6); DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Claims 3, 5, and 6; GRANTING 27 Motion to D ismiss as to the Separation of Powers claim (Claim 14); DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE Claim 14; INFORMING the plaintiff that leave to amend is limited to the claims specified; DIRECTING the plaintiff that an amendment to add new claims shall require leave of court pursuant to F.R.Cv.P. Rule 15(a)(2). (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 (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SUISUN CITY, 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 E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21).
On February 18, 2015, 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. 35.) 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
27
28

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 18, 2015 (ECF No. 35), are adopted
in full;
2. The Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
1

1

a. GRANTED as to the Equal Protection claim (Claim 3). Claim 3 is dismissed

2

with leave to amend, for the limited purpose of permitting Plaintiff to allege facts showing that he

3

was singled out for detrimental treatment by the police and the City Council, that this treatment

4

was not applied to other similarly situated persons, and that there was no rational basis for the

5

differential treatment.

6

b. DENIED as to the First Amendment claim (Claim 4).

7

c. GRANTED as to the conspiracy claim (Claim 5), which is dismissed with leave

8
9
10
11
12
13

to amend.
d. GRANTED as to the failure to prevent conspiracy claim (Claim 6), which is
dismissed with leave to amend.
e. GRANTED as to the Separation of Powers claim (Claim 14), which is
dismissed with prejudice.
f. Leave to amend is limited to the claims specified, and Plaintiff is directed that

14

amendment to add new claims to the Complaint shall require leave of court pursuant to Fed. R.

15

Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: April 23, 2015

19

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2