(PC) Gustard v. McCauley et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/17/2018 ADOPTING in FULL #17 Findings and Recommendations. The following claims are DISMISSED with prejudice: Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim; equal protection claim insofar as it is based on membership in a protected class; substantive due process claims; facial due process challenge to 118 and 490 of the California Business and Professions Code; as-applied due process challenge to 118 of the California Business and Professions Code; 1985 conspiracy claims; and pendent state-law claim based on 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant Harris is DISMISSED from the case with prejudice. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days. Any amended complaint must include copies of the ALJs decision and the D&O adopting it. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER IAN GUSTARD,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-0012-GEB-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

KAMALA HARRIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking

18

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On November 30, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.

24

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

25

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

26

ORDERED that:

27

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 30, 2017, are adopted in full.

28

2. The following claims are dismissed with prejudice:
1

1

a. Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim;

2

b. Plaintiff’s equal protection claim insofar as it is based on membership in a

3

protected class;

4

c. Plaintiff’s substantive due process claims;

5

d. Plaintiff’s facial due process challenge to §§ 118 and 490 of the California

6
7
8
9
10
11

Business and Professions Code;
e. Plaintiff’s as-applied due process challenge to § 118 of the California
Business and Professions Code;
f. Plaintiff’s § 1985 conspiracy claims; and
g. Plaintiff’s pendent state-law claim based on § 1094.6 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure.

12

3. Defendant Harris is dismissed from the case with prejudice.

13

4. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. Any amended

14

complaint must include copies of the ALJ’s decision and the D&O adopting it. If

15

these documents are unavailable, plaintiff must explain why. Failure to comply with this order

16

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or

17

failure to prosecute.

18

Dated: January 17, 2018

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2