Lopez-Cervantes v. Peters et al

Filing 30

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acostas Findings and Recommendation 22 . Defendants Motion to Dismiss 11 is DENIED. The Court GRANTS Defendants motion for abstention as to Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief, and DENIES Defendants motion for abstention as to Plaintiffs other claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 5th day of September, 2017, by United States District Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (peg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SAAMIR LOPEZ-CERVANTES,
Plaintiff,
No. 6:16-cv-01528-AC
v.
ORDER
COLETTE S. PETERS, MAX WILLIAMS,
ROBERT JESTER, BOBBY MINK, DARIN
HUMPHRIES, MICHAEL RIGGINS, DAN
BERGER, SID THOMPSON, DAVID
HANSEN, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20,
Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings & Recommendation [22] on June 5, 2017, in
which he recommends that this Court deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss [11]; grant
Defendants’ motion for abstention as to Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief; and deny

1 – ORDER

Defendants’ motion for abstention as to Plaintiff’s other claims. The matter is now before the
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings &
Recommendation (“F&R”), the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion
of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932
(9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Defendants raise four objections to the F&R: (1) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); (2) Plaintiff lacks standing because he has suffered no “actual
injury,” as required by Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) and Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343
(1996); (3) Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and (4) alternatively,
Defendants’ motions for Younger and Pullman abstention should be granted. Defs.’ Obj., ECF
26. The Court has carefully considered Defendants’ objections and concludes that the objections
do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent
portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s F&R.

///

///

///

///

2 – ORDER

CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation [22].
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [11] is denied. The Court grants Defendants’ motion for
abstention as to Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief, and denies Defendants’ motion for
abstention as to Plaintiff’s other claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ________________ day of _________________________________ , 2017.

____________________________________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

3 – ORDER