(PC) Gustard v. McCauley et al

Filing 87

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/30/2020 ADOPTING in FULL the #78 Findings and Recommendations filed 10/29/2019; GRANTING without leave to amend #51 Defendant Morazzini's Motion to Dismiss; and GRANTING in PART and DENIED in PART #52 defendants McCauley and McKinney's Motion to Dismiss. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER GUSTARD,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-0012-TLN-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

KAMALA HARRIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Christopher Gustard (“Plaintiff”), a federal inmate proceeding pro se, has filed

18

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

19

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

20

On October 29, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21

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

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 78.) Plaintiff

23

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 83) and Defendants have filed

24

a response thereto (ECF No. 85).

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

26

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

27

file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

28

proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 29, 2019 (ECF No. 78), are adopted

3

in full;
2. Defendant Morazzini’s March 29, 2019 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 51) is

4
5

GRANTED without leave to amend; and

6
7

3. The March 29, 2019 Motion to Dismiss brought by defendants McCauley and
McKinney (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED in part as follows and otherwise DENIED:
a. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant McKinney, in his individual capacity, deprived

8
9
10

Plaintiff of due process by imposing costs of enforcement on him are DISMISSED with leave to
amend;

11

b. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants McKinney and McCauley, in their individual

12

capacities, deprived Plaintiff of due process by not providing notice of the time limit for filing a

13

state court administrative writ are DISMISSED without leave to amend;

14

c. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants McKinney and McCauley, in their individual

15

capacities, deprived Plaintiff of due process by imposing a license renewal fee and a late fee on

16

him without providing adequate process are DISMISSED with leave to amend;

17

d. Plaintiff’s claim that defendants McKinney and McCauley, in their individual

18

capacities, deprived Plaintiff of due process by providing inadequate notice and an untimely

19

hearing on the revocation of his license are DISMISSED with leave to amend.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2020

22
23
24
25

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2