(PC) Haynie v. Esquerra et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/14/2024 ADOPTING 33 Findings and Recommendations in Full, and DENYING 26 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant shall file an Answer responding to the claims in the 9 Second Amended Complaint no later than 21 days after the date of entry of this order, and this matter is REFERRED BACK to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Woodson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONELL THOMAS HAYNIE,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:22-cv-02204-DAD-DB (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
CASSANDRA SYSOUVANH,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
(Doc. Nos. 26, 33)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Donell Haynie is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

20

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

21

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

22

On January 17, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

23

recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”)

24

(Doc. No. 26) be denied. (Doc. No. 33 at 10.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that

25

plaintiff’s First Amendment claim should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative

26

remedies prior to filing suit as is required, that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the elements of

27

his First Amendment claim, and that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged non-consensual sexual

28

contact in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 4–9.)
1

1

The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained

2

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at

3

10.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in

4

which to do so has now passed.

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

6

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

7

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

8

Accordingly:

9

1.

10

The findings and recommendations issued on January 17, 2024 (Doc. No. 33) are
adopted in full;

11

2.

12

Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc.
No. 26) is denied;

13

3.

Defendant shall file an answer responding to the claims in plaintiff’s second

14

amended complaint no later than twenty-one (21) days after the date of entry of

15

this order; and

16

4.

17

consistent with this order.

18
19

This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 14, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2