(PS) Selck v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/10/2019 ADOPTING 35 Findings and Recommendations in full and GRANTING Carlena Tapella's 6 Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). All claims against her are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant Tapella's 7 Motion to Strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute and 26 Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss plaintiff's first and second amended comp laints is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff's claims against County of Sacramento are DISMISSED SUA SPONTE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's 24 first Amended Complaint, 25 second Amended Complaint, and 33 third Amended Complaint are DENIED. Plaintiff's 20 and 22 motions for injunctive relief are DENIED. CASE CLOSED. (York, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORREY SELCK, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:18-cv-2447-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; CARLENA TAPELLA, Defendants. 17 18 On September 6, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 19 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 20 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 21 22 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 23 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 24 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed September 6, 2019, are 25 ADOPTED; 26 2. Defendant Tapella’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) 27 (ECF No. 6) is granted and all claims against her are dismissed for lack of subject 28 matter jurisdiction; 1 3. Defendant Tapella’s motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (ECF No. 2 7) and motion to strike and/or dismiss plaintiff’s first and second amended complaints 3 (ECF No. 26) is denied as moot; 4 4. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant County of Sacramento are dismissed sua sponte for 5 lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 6 5. Plaintiff’s first, second, and third amended complaints, construed as motions for leave 7 to amend (ECF Nos. 24, 25, 33), are denied; 8 6. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 20 & 22) are denied; and 9 7. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 10 11 Dated: October 10, 2019 /s/ John A. Mendez HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ United States District Court Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?