Rogers v. Richard et al

Filing 67

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/5/18 ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 64 : Any claim based on the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act is dismissed. Any claim based on the alleged 2013 racial profiling stop is di smissed. Defendants Joseph Farrow, Michael Richard, Kent, Thompson, Nichols, Williams, Vasilou, Koon, Bertola and Matthews are dismissed. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the 2000d allegations based on the statute of limitations is denied. Claims against defendant Stanley in his official capacity and defendant Fish in his individual capacity shall remain in the case. No further amendments to the complaint are permitted. Defendants shall file an Answer to the Complaint within 30 days of the issuance of this Order. (Kaminski, H)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

KIM EDWARD ROGERS,

6

Plaintiff,

7
8
9

v.

No. 2:17-cv-00149-JAM-GGH

ORDER

M. RICHARD, CHP Captain Commander,
et al.,
Defendants.

10
11
12

Plaintiff appears in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. On March 7, 2018 the

13

magistrate judge issued an Order and Findings and Recommendations which it was recommended

14

that plaintiff’s Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act claim should be finally dismissed as

15

should any claim based on an alleged 2013 racial profiling stop, defendants Joseph Farrow and

16

Michael Richard who were sued only in their official capacities should be dismissed as should

17

defendants Kent, Thompson, Nichols Williams, Vasilou, Koon, Bertola and deceased defendant

18

Matthews. The magistrate judge further recommended that the motion to dismiss the section

19

2000d allegations based on the statute of limitations should be denied and defendant Stanley, in

20

his official capacity, and defendant Fish in his individual capacity should remain in the case.

21

Finally, it was recommended that no further amendments should be permitted and defendants

22

should file an answer to the now final complaint. ECF No. 64.
Thereafter, on April 27, 2018 the magistrate judge issued an Order informing the parties

23
24

they had 14 days from the date of its issuance to file and serve any written objections they might

25

have to the Findings and Recommendations and waring that the failure to so file could waive any

26

objections to this court’s Order. ECF No. 65. Plaintiff filed objections on May 11, 2018. ECF

27

No. 66.

28

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

1

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file and the

2

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations the court ADOPTS the findings and

3

recommendations in full.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

6

Any claim based on the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act is finally

dismissed;

7

2.

Any claim based on the alleged 2013 racial profiling stop is finally dismissed;

8

3.

Joseph Farrow ad Michael Richard who are sued only in their official capacities

9
10
11

are finally dismissed;
4.

Defendants Kent, Thompson, Nichols, Williams, Vasilou (investigator), Koon and

Bertola are finally dismissed;

12

5.

Deceased defendant Matthews is dismissed;

13

6.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the 2000d allegations based on the statute of

14
15
16

limitations is denied;
7.

Claims against defendant Stanley in his official capacity and defendant Fish in his

individual capacity shall remain in the case;

17

8.

No further amendments to the complaint are permitted;

18

9.

Defendants shall file an Answer to the Complaint within 30 days of the issuance of

19
20

this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

DATED: June 5, 2018
/s/ John A. Mendez____________

_____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2