Clark v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/28/17 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 7/12/17 37 are ADOPTED in full; Defendants' 12/5/16 MOTION to DISMISS 30 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; The second amend ed complaint's Monell and violation of the ADA claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend; The second amended complaint's claim for illegal seizure against defendant County of Sacramento is DISMISSED without leave to amend; Defendant Nel son and Defendant Kemp are directed to file an answer within fourteen days of the date of this order to the second amended complaint's claims for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; false arrest; excessive force; and illegal seizure of property; and Defendant County of Sacramento is DISMISSED from this action. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FELICIA CLARK, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-1211 JAM DB PS v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 17 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On July 12, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 19 20 were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and 22 recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and no party has filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 12, 2017 (ECF No. 37) are adopted in 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 full; 2. Defendants’ December 5, 2016 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30) is granted in part and denied in part; 3. The second amended complaint’s Monell and violation of the ADA claims are dismissed without leave to amend; 4. The second amended complaint’s claim for illegal seizure against defendant County of Sacramento is dismissed without leave to amend; 5. Defendant Nelson and Defendant Kemp are directed to file an answer within fourteen 11 days of the date of this order to the second amended complaint’s claims for retaliation in violation 12 of the First Amendment; false arrest; excessive force; and illegal seizure of property; and 13 14 6. Defendant County of Sacramento is dismissed from this action. DATED: September 28, 2017 15 /s/ John A. Mendez________________________ 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 17 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?