Williams v. Resler et al

Filing 58

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 53 ] and Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 23 ]. Plaintiff has until May 4, 2018 to file a Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 3/19/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVEN GREGORY WILLIAMS,

Case No.: 16cv2538-CAB-KSC

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 53]
and GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 23]

S. RESLER, et al.,
Defendant.

15
16
17

On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff Steven Gregory Williams, a state prisoner

18

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint for violation of his civil rights

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. No. 1.] On December 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First

20

Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. No. 4.] On May 30, 2017, Defendants filed a

21

motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 23.] On December 18, 2017,

22

Magistrate Judge Karen Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) to

23

grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, with leave to amend only as to Plaintiff’s

24

Americans with Disabilities (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation (“RA”) claims against

25

defendant S. Resler. [Doc. No. 53.] On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to

26

the Report. [Doc. No. 57.]

27
28

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the
1
16cv2538-CAB-KSC

1

Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are

2

filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and

3

recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and

4

Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may

5

“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by

6

the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge

7

must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is

8

made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

9

Cir.2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

10

The Report provides a summary of the factual allegations in the FAC [Doc. No. 53

11

at 2-3], followed by a legal analysis of Plaintiff’s: (1) Fourteenth Amendment claims; (2)

12

ADA and RA claims; and (3) official capacity claims under California state law [Doc.

13

No. 53 at 5- 15]. The Report concludes that Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be

14

granted with prejudice as to all claims as to all of the defendants, except that Plaintiff

15

should be given leave to amend his ADA and RA claims as to defendant Resler only.

16

[Doc. No. 53 at 15-16.]

17

In his objections to the Report, Plaintiff takes issue with the Report’s recitation of

18

the factual allegations in the FAC. [Doc. No. 57.] While it is true that the factual

19

recitations in the Report are not an exact duplicate of the allegations in the FAC, the

20

Report merely seeks to provide a summary of the FAC’s allegations, not an actual

21

duplication. This Court has compared the Report’s summary of the allegations with the

22

actual allegations in the FAC, and finds the summaries to be accurate for purposes of the

23

legal analysis required for this motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are rejected.

24

Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be thorough, complete,

25

and an accurate analysis of the legal issues presented in the motion to dismiss. Therefore,

26

the Court: (1) ADOPTS the Report in full; (2) REJECTS Plaintiff’s objections; (3) AND

27

GRANTS the motion to dismiss as follows:

28
2
16cv2538-CAB-KSC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(1) GRANTS as to all defendants WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s claims under
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;
(2) GRANTS as to defendant Resler WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s
claims under the ADA and RA;
(3) GRANTS as to defendants Hernandez, Garza, and Servantes WITH
PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s claims under the ADA and RA;
(4) GRANTS as to defendants Din, Juarez, Stratton and Liu WITH PREJUDICE as
to Plaintiff’s claims under the ADA and RA;
(5) GRANTS as to all defendants WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s claims for
punitive damages under the ADA and RA;
(6) GRANTS as to all defendants WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s claims

12

against defendants in their official capacities under California Government

13

Code § 11135.

14

Plaintiff has until May 4, 2018 to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

15

However, the SAC may only include claims under the ADA and RA against defendant

16

Resler, and may not include claims for punitive damages. If no SAC is filed by May 4,

17

2018, judgment shall be entered for Defendants and the case shall be closed without

18

further court order.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2018

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16cv2538-CAB-KSC