Duke v. Dept Human Services et al

Filing 98

ORDER: This Court adopts Magistrate Judge Russo's F&R 76 . Accordingly, defendants' Motion to Dismiss 65 is GRANTED, and plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall file a Status R eport with Magistrate Judge Kasubhai within 60 days of this order, apprising him as to whether they have obtained substitute counsel or will proceed pro se. Thereafter, discovery and pretrial deadlines shall be reset. Further, all discovery disput es and other requests for relief will be resolved once an appropriate amended complaint has been filed with the Court. Finally, as noted above, plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time 87 is GRANTED only to the extent that plaintiffs' objections 88 are timely. Plaintiffs' other requests for relief 90 and 92 are DENIED. Further, plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Extension of Time 96 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs are granted sixty days from this order to continue to seek alternate representation. All other requests in the motion are denied at this time. Signed on 1/22/2019 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. A copy of this Order was mailed to pro se plaintiff D.D. (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

S.D., and ex rel. D.D. and
Next Fhend o/M.D

Case No. 6: 17-cv-00770-MK

ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs,

CLIDE SAIKI, et al.,
Defendants.
AIKEN, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo 1 filed her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc.
76) recommending that defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 65) should be granted. 2 The matter
is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

1

This case was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo. Subsequent to the
filing of the F&R, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai on October 15,
2018.
2
Magistrate Judge Russo also recommended granting plaintiffs' counsel's Motion to
Withdraw. (doc. 73) This Comt previously granted that motion (doc 79) to clarify plaintiffs'
ability to file objections to the F&R.
PAGE I -ORDER

When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's F&R, the district court
must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business lvfachines, Inc., 656 F.2d
1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
Plaintiffs have filed timely objections 3 ( doc. 88), and defendants have filed a response to
those

objections

(doc.

91 ).

Thus,

this

Comi

reviews

the

F&R

de

novo.

This Comi has carefully reviewed plaintiffs' objections, exhibits, and ancillary requests
made in their emergency and amended petitions (docs. 90 and 92). The Court finds no enor in
Judge Russo's analysis, and thus adopts the F&R in its entirety. Fmiher, plaintiffs' requests to
transfer this case to United States Bankruptcy Comi in the District of Oregon are DENIED.
Also, given that, in adopting the F&R, this Court is granting plaintiff sixty days from this order
to find substitute counsel, plaintiffs motion for extension of time (doc. 96) GRANTED IN
PART, however, all other requests made in that motion are DENIED.
CONCLUSION

This Comi adopts Magistrate Judge Russo's F&R (doc. 76). Accordingly, defendant's
Motion to Dismiss (doc. 65) is GRANTED, and plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint is
dismissed, without prejudice.
Plaintiffs shall file a Status Report with Magistrate Judge Kasubhai within 60 days of this
order, apprising him as to whether they have obtained substitute counsel or will proceed pro se.
Thereafter, discovery and pretrial deadlines shall be reset. Fmiher, all discovery disputes and
other requests for relief will be resolved once an appropriate amended complaint have been filed
with Comi.
3

This Comi twice granted motions from plaintiffs for extensions of time to file
objections. The Court now grants plaintiffs third motion for extension of time (doc. 87) only to
the extent that plaintiffs' filed objections (doc. 88) are deemed timely.
PAGE2-0RDER

Finally, as noted above, plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time (doc. 87) is GRANTED
only to the extent that plaintiffs' objections (doc, 88) are timely. Plaintiffs' other requests for
relief (doc. 90 and 92) are DENIED. Further, plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Extension
of Time (doc. 96) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs are granted
sixty days from this order to continue to seek alternate representation. All other requests in the
motion are denied at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this�), day of January, 2019.

Ut1.c,co: Vl

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

PAGE 3 -ORDER