Crawford v. Beard

Filing 106

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/4/2021. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES DARREN CRAWFORD,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-05578-JD

v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, AND
DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

Defendants.

12
13

On December 22, 2014, plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint

14

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Docket No. 1.

15

The case was assigned to a magistrate judge who on May 17, 2016, ordered service on several

16

defendants from the second amended complaint but also dismissed several defendants who had not

17

yet appeared in the case and consented to a magistrate judge. Docket No. 15. The served

18

defendants consented to a magistrate judge (Docket No. 28) and the case was closed when

19

defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment was granted on September 29,

20

2017 (Docket No. 69).

21

On November 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit held in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04

22

(9th Cir. 2017) that all parties including unserved defendants must consent to proceed before a

23

magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest. Id. Plaintiff later appealed the dismissal and closing of

24

his case. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the case, finding that the magistrate judge

25

dismissed claims against defendants Bell, Gongora, Hall, Love and Williams before those

26

defendants had been served and consented. Docket No. 94. The Ninth Circuit vacated only the

27

magistrate judge’s May 17, 2016, order of service that dismissed the defendants who had not

28

consented. Docket No. 94 at 2. The Ninth Circuit did not disturb the rulings on the motion to

1

dismiss or motion for summary judgment. Id. The case was then reassigned on a random basis to

2

this District Judge.

3

The matter was reopened, and the Court treated the magistrate judge’s May 17, 2016, order

4

dismissing defendants Bell, Gongora, Hall, Love and Williams as a Report and Recommendation.

5

The parties were provided an opportunity to file written objections to the Report and

6

Recommendation, and both parties submitted filings.
The Court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s report recommending that: defendant Hall

8

be dismissed due to plaintiff’s speculative and conclusory allegations that Hall failed to properly

9

supervise his subordinates; defendants Williams, Love and Bell be dismissed due to plaintiff’s

10

failure to plead specific facts demonstrating that the defendants conspired against him; and that

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

defendant Gongora be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to specify what constitutional right

12

Gongora violated and how he violated that right. The report noted that plaintiff had been provided

13

an opportunity to cure these deficiencies, but failed to provide sufficient allegations in the second

14

amended complaint.

15

Plaintiff filed objections (Docket Nos. 101, 104) but did not address the findings in the

16

Report and Recommendation. Instead, plaintiff argued that the motion to dismiss and motion for

17

summary judgment should have also been vacated and that he should be provided an opportunity

18

to file a third amended complaint. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity in his objections to

19

present sufficient allegations regarding these defendants and claims, but in effect declined to do

20

so. There is no good reason to allow a third amended complaint. Plaintiff also stated that more

21

information about these defendants would have been obtained in discovery. But as the Supreme

22

Court determined in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009), “[t]hreadbare recitals of the

23

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not” meet the federal

24

pleading standard, which “does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with

25

nothing more than conclusions.”

26

Plaintiff’s objections are overruled, and the Court adopts the report. For the reasons

27

articulated in the Report and Recommendation as well as in this order, defendants Bell, Gongora,

28

Hall, Love and Williams are DISMISSED with prejudice from this action. The dismissal is with
2

1

prejudice because plaintiff was already provided leave to amend and further amendment would be

2

futile. The Clerk is requested to close this case.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 4, 2021

5
6
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3