(PS) Altstatt et al v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 85

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/2/18 adopting #75 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Motions to Dismiss #9 , #21 , #24 , #46 and #48 are GRANTED. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DANIEL JAMES ALTSTATT and KIM
EILEEN GLAZZARD,
Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15

No. 2:18-cv-00150 JAM AC (PS)

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States

18
19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On May 21, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

20
21

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

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF NO. 75. Plaintiff

23

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 79.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

24
25

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

26

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

27

analysis.

28

////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 21, 2018, are adopted in full;

3

2. Hon. Kevin Culhane, Hon. Robert C. Hight and the Superior Court of the State of

4

California’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED and all claims against them are

5

DISMISSED with prejudice;

6
7

3. Defendant Gov. Jerry Brown’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED and all
claims against him are DISMISSED with prejudice;

8
9

4. The City Employee Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 48 (motion; see also ECF
Nos. 51 and 59 (joinders)) are GRANTED and all claims are dismissed against them. State

10

claims are dismissed with prejudice, and federal claims (the Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth cause of

11

action) are dismissed with leave to amend as to any conduct occurring on or after January 23,

12

2016;

13

5. The City of Sacramento’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED and all claims

14

against the city DISMISSED. With limited to leave to amend plaintiffs’ Third, Fourth, Fifth,

15

Eighth and Ninth causes of action for conduct occurring on or after January 23, 2016; and

16

6. Kip Proctor’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED and all claims against

17

him are dismissed with leave to amend, subject to the applicable statues of limitations (conduct

18

occurring on or after January 23, 2016 for personal injury, January 23 2015 for trespass and

19

January 23, 2017 for defamation).

20
21
22
23

DATED: July 2, 2018
/s/ John A. Mendez____________

_____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2