Demarest v. The City of Vallejo California et al

Filing 25

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/28/17 RECOMMENDING that Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint 16 be GRANTED; Plaintiff's second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth , and tenth causes of action in his first amended complaint 13 be DISMISSED without leave to amend; Plaintiff's seventh and eighth causes of action in his first amended complaint (id.) be DISMISSED with leave to amend after discovery, subjec t to the limitations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11; Plaintiff's request for punitive damages in his first amended complaint (id.) be STRICKEN; Plaintiff's first amended complaint PROCEED on his first and ninth causes of action. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID P. DEMAREST,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2271-GEB-KJN PS

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
17

Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended

18

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed an

19

opposition and defendants filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 18, 23.) On June 26, 2017, the court took this

20

matter under submission on the briefs without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).

21

(ECF No. 24.) Upon consideration of the parties’ written briefing, the court’s record, and

22

applicable law, the court finds as follows:

23

I.

24

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff David P. Demarest, who is proceeding without counsel, filed this action on

25

September 23, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) Subsequently, on November 28, 2016, defendants filed a

26

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint. (ECF No. 6.) After briefing, this court granted

27

defendants’ first motion to dismiss with leave to amend. (ECF No. 12.) Citing Federal Rule of

28

Civil Procedure 11(b), the court cautioned plaintiff:
1

1

that if he elects to file an amended complaint, he must clearly
articulate which of his claims are asserted against each remaining
defendant and provide factual allegations with regard to each claim
and each defendant that address the deficiencies outlined above.
More importantly, plaintiff must have a good faith basis for making
such allegations.

2
3
4
5

(ECF No. 12 at 14.)

6

II.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on March 9, 2017, bringing ten causes of

7
8

action. (ECF No. 13.) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff alleges that City of Vallejo police

9

officers violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when: Officer Jodi Brown used

10

excessive force against plaintiff when she arrested him on September 26, 2014, and later withheld

11

exculpatory evidence (Id. at 4–6); Officer Jeffrey Tai transported plaintiff back to the police

12

station and failed to “stand up” for plaintiff’s rights (Id. at 7); Officer Herman Robinson may

13

have suggested or approved that plaintiff be charged with an additional crime and failed to “stand

14

up” for plaintiff’s rights (Id. at 7–8); and two unnamed City of Vallejo police officers pointed

15

Taser guns at plaintiff during the arrest. (Id. at 8–9.) Additionally, plaintiff asserts Monell claims

16

against the City of Vallejo, alleging that the city has “a clear custom, policy and/or repeated

17

practice of poor policing . . . condoning and . . . encouraging militant policing activities” that

18

caused the violations of plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 9–16); see

19

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiff also seeks

20

$2,000,000 in punitive damages from the City of Vallejo. (ECF No. 13 at 20.)

21

III.

LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

22

A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

23

challenges the sufficiency of the pleadings set forth in the complaint. Vega v. JPMorgan Chase

24

Bank, N.A., 654 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1109 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Under the “notice pleading” standard

25

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff’s complaint must provide, in part, a “short and

26

plain statement” of plaintiff’s claims showing entitlement to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see

27

also Paulsen v. CNF, Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). “To survive a motion to dismiss,

28

a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that
2

1

is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.

2

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads

3

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

4

for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

5

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts all of the

6

facts alleged in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the

7

plaintiff. Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 977 (9th Cir. 2007). The court is “not,

8

however, required to accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents

9

referred to in the complaint, and [the court does] not necessarily assume the truth of legal

10

conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations.” Paulsen, 559 F.3d at

11

1071. The court must construe a pro se pleading liberally to determine if it states a claim and,

12

prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in her complaint and give plaintiff an opportunity

13

to cure them if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect. See Lopez v.

14

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); accord Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

15

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that “pro se pleadings are liberally construed,

16

particularly where civil rights claims are involved”); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342

17

& n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that courts continue to construe pro se filings liberally even when

18

evaluating them under the standard announced in Iqbal).
In ruling on a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court “may generally

19
20

consider only allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and

21

matters properly subject to judicial notice.” Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506

22

F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Although the court may not

23

consider a memorandum in opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss to determine the

24

propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, see Schneider v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194,

25

1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), it may consider allegations raised in opposition papers in deciding

26

whether to grant leave to amend, see, e.g., Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1026 n.2 (9th Cir.

27

2003).

28

////
3

1

IV.

DISCUSSION
The City of Vallejo along with Officers Brown, Tai, and Robison (“defendants”) seek to

2
3

dismiss plaintiff’s second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and tenth causes of action, as well as

4

plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.1 (See ECF No. 16.) For the reasons below, the

5

undersigned recommends that defendants’ motion to dismiss be GRANTED; plaintiff’s second,

6

third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and tenth causes of action be DISMISSED without leave to amend;

7

plaintiff’s seventh and eighth causes of action be DISMISSED with leave to amend after

8

discovery, and plaintiff’s request for punitive damages from the City of Vallejo be STRICKEN.

9

A.

10

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment Claims2

Plaintiff alleges that multiple City of Vallejo police officers violated his Fourth

11

Amendment rights during and after his September 26, 2014 arrest. (ECF No. 13 at 7–9.) “[T]he

12

Fourth Amendment . . . guarantees citizens the right ‘to be secure in their persons . . . against

13

unreasonable . . . seizures’ of the person.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (U.S. 1989).

14

The Fourth Amendment protects against excessive force during an arrest or investigatory stop.

15

Id. “[O]fficers may use only such force as is ‘objectively reasonable’ under the circumstances.”

16

Ames v. King Cty., 846 F.3d 340, 348 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at 397).

17

1.

18

Third and Fifth Causes of Action

In his third cause of action, plaintiff alleges that Officer Tai violated his Fourth

19

Amendment rights when the officer “aided and abetted the unlawful arrest of the plaintiff by

20

transporting plaintiff” to the police station. (ECF No. 13 at 7.) However, plaintiff fails to provide

21

factual allegations that Officer Tai was involved in the arrest, beyond transporting him.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants do not seek to dismiss plaintiff’s first, seventh, eighth, or ninth causes of action.
(See ECF No 16; ECF No. 23.) In his first cause of action, plaintiff alleges that Officer Brown
unreasonably detained him and applied excessive force when she pulled him from his vehicle and
arrested him. (ECF No. 13 at 4–5.) In his ninth cause of action, plaintiff brings Monell claims
related to the alleged violations of his Fourth Amendment rights that were allegedly caused by the
city’s failure to properly train officers and the city’s practice of conducting illegal check points.
(ECF No. 13 at 9.) Plaintiff’s seventh and eighth cases of action are discussed in detail below.
2

For organizational purposes, the undersigned does not consider plaintiff’s claims in the exact
order they are presented.
4

1

Additionally, plaintiff does not allege that Officer Tai used excessive force against him, or

2

otherwise abused him. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “[i]f an officer has probable

3

cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his

4

presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.” Atwater v. City

5

of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001). It follows, therefore, that Officer Tai’s alleged

6

actions—transporting plaintiff to the police station after plaintiff was arrested for allegedly

7

committing a minor criminal offense in the presence of another police officer—were objectively

8

reasonable on their face and did not violate plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.

9

In his fifth cause of action, plaintiff alleges that Officer Robinson violated his Fourth

10

Amendment rights because the officer “may have suggested” an additional criminal charge

11

against him or “at the very least [Officer Robinson] aided and abetted Officer Jodi Brown’s

12

unlawful arrest . . . by approving that additional charge.” (ECF No. 13 at 7.) First, plaintiff’s

13

claims against Officer Robinson do not constitute factual allegations because they are

14

equivocations about what the officer “may have” done, rather than assertions of what he actually

15

did. (Id.) Second, even assuming that Officer Robinson suggested or approved “adding the

16

additional charge,” plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for unreasonable seizure, because

17

plaintiff was already arrested at the time Officer Robinson “may have” approved an additional

18

charge. (Id.) Furthermore, as defendants point out, the district attorney’s office—not the

19

police—decides whether or not to charge a person after he or she is arrested. (ECF No. 16 at 5.)

20
21
22
23

Therefore, because plaintiff has failed to state cognizable claims in his third and fifth
causes of action, each should be dismissed. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
2.

Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action

Plaintiff also alleges that Officers Doe 1 and Doe 2 violated his Fourth Amendment rights

24

when each pointed Taser guns at him, “aiding and abetting Officer Jodi Brown’s unlawful arrest

25

... with an unreasonable and entirely unnecessary use of potentially lethal force.” (ECF No. 13 at

26

8–9.) Plaintiff claims that “a Taser in the hands of [Vallejo Police Department] officers is a very

27

real and deadly threat of death or serious bodily injury.” (Id.) Defendants have not moved to

28

dismiss the plaintiff’s seventh and eighth causes of action.
5

1

However, “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the

2

court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without

3

prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R.

4

Civ. P. 4(m). Here, plaintiff filed his original complaint on September 23, 2016, and his first

5

amended complaint on March 9, 2017. (ECF Nos. 1, 13.) Furthermore, the alleged events

6

underlying this matter took place on September 26, 2014. (ECF No. 13 at 1.) Yet, to date,

7

plaintiff has failed to name and serve Officers Doe 1 and Doe 2. He has also not provided good

8

cause to indicate why these officers remain unknown, nearly three years after the alleged events.

9

Additionally, “[a] District Court may properly on its own motion dismiss an action as to

10

defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are in a position similar to that

11

of moving defendants or where claims against such defendants are integrally related.” Silverton

12

v. Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981). “Such a dismissal may be made

13

without notice where the [plaintiffs] cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.,

14

813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). The court’s authority in this regard includes sua sponte

15

dismissal as to defendants who have not been served and defendants who have not yet answered

16

or appeared. Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Ahlstrom Recovery, 44 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir.

17

1995) (“We have upheld dismissal with prejudice in favor of a party which had not yet appeared,

18

on the basis of facts presented by other defendants which had appeared.”); see also Bach v.

19

Mason, 190 F.R.D. 567, 571 (D. Idaho 1999); Ricotta v. California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 978-79

20

(S.D. Cal. 1998).

21

In this litigation, Officers Doe 1 and Doe 2 are similarly situated to Officers Tai and

22

Robinson. Plaintiff maintains that all of these officers aided and abetted Officer Brown’s

23

allegedly illegal arrest. (See ECF No. 13 at 7–9.) What is more, the court is highly skeptical that

24

plaintiff can possibly win relief against Officers Doe 1 and Doe 2 because plaintiff alleges that

25

these officers merely pointed Taser guns at him, threatening, but not using force. (Id. at 8–9.)

26

Therefore, the undersigned finds that the court should exercise its sua sponte dismissal

27

power for plaintiff’s seventh and eighth causes of action against Officers Doe 1 and Doe 2. See

28

Columbia Steel, 44 F.3d at 802. However, since this matter will proceed on plaintiff’s first and
6

1

ninth causes of action, if the plaintiff learns of these officers’ identities during discovery, he

2

should be granted leave to amend his complaint to add these officers at that time, subject to the

3

limitations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Claims

4

B.

5

Plaintiff also brings various claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. These allegations

6

suffer from the same deficiencies the court pointed out after defendants moved to dismiss

7

plaintiff’s original complaint. (See ECF No. 12 at 10–12.) The first amended complaint, like

8

plaintiff’s original complaint,

9
10
11
12
13

does not provide a clear statement regarding which provision or
provisions of [the Fourteenth] Amendment provide the basis for his
claims. Nevertheless, when the allegations of the complaint are
liberally construed, it appears that plaintiff bases his 42 U.S.C. §
1983 claims premised on Fourteenth Amendment violations on that
Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.
(ECF No. 12 at 10.)

14

In his second cause of action, plaintiff asserts that Officer Brown either deliberately

15

avoided recording the encounter where plaintiff was arrested, or destroyed or concealed any audio

16

and video recordings of plaintiff’s arrest, thereby withholding exculpatory information in

17

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 13 at 5–6.) Here, similar to the allegations in

18

his original complaint, plaintiff’s allegations against Officer Brown fail to state a cognizable

19

Fourteenth Amendment claim. (See ECF No. 12 at 11.)

20

A Fourteenth Amendment due process claim under § 1983 may be premised on a police

21

officer’s willful failure to disclose exculpatory evidence even when all criminal charges against

22

the defendant are eventually dropped by the prosecution and no criminal trial is held. Tatum v.

23

Moody, 768 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2014). However, a due process violation may be found under

24

such circumstances only where the detention to which the criminal defendant had been subjected

25

was “of (1) unusual length, (2) caused by the investigating officers’ failure to disclose highly

26

significant exculpatory evidence to prosecutors, and (3) due to conduct that is culpable in that the

27

officers understood the risks to the plaintiff’s rights from withholding the information or were

28

completely indifferent to those risks.” Id. at 819–20. Here, plaintiff alleges that Officer Brown
7

1

withheld exculpatory evidence and that all charges against him were dropped prior to trial. (See

2

ECF No. 13 at 6.) However, plaintiff’s allegations show that evidence was withheld only from

3

plaintiff’s criminal defense counsel, not the prosecutor, which is necessary to state a cognizable

4

claim under Moody. 768 F.3d at 819–20. Furthermore, plaintiff alleges no facts plausibly

5

suggesting that plaintiff’s detention was of “unusual length” or that the exculpatory evidence

6

withheld by defendants was “highly significant.” Id. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a

7

cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim based on the withholding of allegedly exculpatory

8

evidence under the circumstances alleged therein.

9

Plaintiff also alleges that Officer Brown “demonstrated malicious and deliberate abuse”

10

when she charged him with a felony for possessing a 3-inch general utility knife, which she found

11

on plaintiff, after he was brought into the police station. (ECF No. 13 at 6.) To the extent that

12

plaintiff alleges that this was a violation of his due process, he has failed to state a claim because

13

district attorneys—not police officers—make the ultimate decision whether to charge an

14

individual with a crime.

15

In his fourth and sixth causes of action, respectively, plaintiff alleges that Officer Tai and

16

Officer Robinson failed to “stand up” for the rights of plaintiff. (Id. at 7–8) The only affirmative

17

act plaintiff alleges Officer Tai performed was to transport plaintiff to the police station after his

18

arrest, which, as explained, was objectively reasonable. Otherwise failing to “stand up” for

19

plaintiff is not a cognizable claim under the Fourteenth Amendment because due process does not

20

require police officers to “stand up” for an arrestee and take his side during or after an arrest,

21

based on the arrestee’s disagreement with the situation.

22

Similarly, plaintiff alleges that Officer Robinson did not “stand up” for his rights by

23

mocking him and failing to supervise Officer Brown. These allegations also fail to state a claim

24

under the Fourteenth Amendment. First, while mocking someone may be inappropriate, plaintiff

25

cites to no legal authority to support his allegation that the alleged mocking by Officer Robinson

26

constitutes a due process violation.

27

Second, and more importantly, “[u]nder Section 1983, supervisory officials are not liable

28

for actions of subordinates on any theory of vicarious liability.” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642,
8

1

645–46 (9th Cir. 1989). “A supervisor may be liable if there exists either (1) his or her personal

2

involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the

3

supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642,

4

646 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, plaintiff alleges that “Officer Robinson violated plaintiff’s 14th

5

amendment rights to due process when he made the decision to not stand up for the rights of a

6

citizen he knew had been unlawfully arrested.” (ECF No. 13 at 8.) Plaintiff does not allege that

7

Officer Robinson directed Officer Brown to conduct the arrest, or that Officer Robinson was

8

involved in the arrest itself. Therefore, plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim related to

9

Officer Robinson’s liability as a supervisor, because he has not alleged that Officer Robinson was

10
11
12

actively involved in or caused plaintiff’s arrest.
Thus, because plaintiff has failed to state any plausible or cognizable claim in his second,
fourth, and sixth causes of action, each should be dismissed. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Plaintiff’s Monell Claims

13

C.

14

Under Monell, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a local government enacted a “clear

15

official policy” which results in civil rights deprivations in order to assert a claim against said

16

local government under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Monell, 436 U.S. at 658 (1978). In his tenth cause of

17

action, plaintiff brings a Monell claim ostensibly under the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 13

18

at 15.) This claim is deficient for two reasons. First, a Monell claim cannot survive unless there

19

is an underlying constitutional violation. See Monell 436 U.S. at 690. As explained above,

20

plaintiff has failed to state any plausible claim under the Fourteenth Amendment against an

21

individual defendant. Therefore, he cannot state a Monell claim based upon the Fourteenth

22

Amendment. Second, in his tenth cause of action, plaintiff also maintains that the city’s policies

23

and customs caused excessive force and unlawful arrests. (ECF No. 13 at 15.) However, such

24

claims are properly categorized as alleged violations of the Fourth, and not the Fourteenth,

25

Amendment. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 394 (“Where, as here, the excessive force claim arises in

26

the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is most properly characterized as

27

one invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment.”) Therefore, claiming that certain

28

policies lead to excessive force and unlawful arrests does not state a Monell claim based upon the
9

1

Fourteenth Amendment.3
Plaintiff’s Request for Punitive Damages

2

D.

3

In his prayer for relief, plaintiff seeks $2,000,000 in punitive damages from the City of

4

Vallejo. (ECF No. 13 at 20.) However, “a municipality is immune from punitive damages under

5

42 U.S.C. § 1983.” City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981). Therefore,

6

plaintiff may not seek punitive damages from the City of Vallejo, which is a municipality, in this

7

§ 1983 action.

8

E.

Leave to Amend

9

“[I]f a complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,

10

leave to amend may be denied . . . if amendment of the complaint would be futile . . . [or if] the

11

‘allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the

12

deficiency.’” Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir.), amended, 856 F.2d 111 (9th Cir.

13

1988) (internal citations omitted). Here, plaintiff already had an opportunity to amend his

14

complaint. (See ECF No. 12.) Moreover, the court informed plaintiff that, in any amended

15

complaint, he needed to “clearly articulate which of his claims are asserted against each

16

remaining defendant and provide factual allegations with regard to each claim and each defendant

17

that address the deficiencies outlined” by the court. (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff has failed to heed the

18

court’s instructions because, as explained, he has again failed to state plausible claims in many of

19

his causes of action. Additionally, the court finds that plaintiff cannot cure these defective claims

20

by pleading additional consistent facts, because any additional facts that might cure these claims

21

would contradict what he has already pled. For these reasons, further leave to amend would be

22

futile for plaintiff’s second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and tenth causes of action.

23

V.

CONCLUSION

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

25

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 16) be

26
27
28

GRANTED.
3

To the extent that plaintiff raises Monell claims based upon alleged violations of the Fourth
Amendment, those claims survive with plaintiff’s ninth cause of action.
10

1

2. Plaintiff’s second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and tenth causes of action in his first

2

amended complaint (ECF No. 13) be DISMISSED without leave to amend.

3

3. Plaintiff’s seventh and eighth causes of action in his first amended complaint (id.) be

4

DISMISSED with leave to amend after discovery, subject to the limitations of Federal

5

Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

6
7

4. Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages in his first amended complaint (id.) be
STRICKEN.

8

5. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint PROCEED on his first and ninth causes of action.

9

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

10

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

11

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

12

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

13

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

14

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the

15

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

16

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th

17

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

18
19

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Dated: July 28, 2017

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11