Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Richard Edward Jackson, Iii v. William Gore

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 11, 2013

RICHARD EDWARD JACKSON, III,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
WILLIAM GORE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF; CAPTAIN PENA, SAN DIEGO CENTRAL JAIL FACILITY COMMANDER; DR. NORANYO, DIRECTOR OF PSYCHIATRY, SDCJ; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGE BAILEY DETENTION FACILITY, AND SAN DIEGO PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge:

ORDER

The matters before the Court are (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 79) recommending that the Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint filed by Defendants County of San Diego, William Gore, Captain Pena and Dr. Noranyo (ECF Nos. 65, 73) be granted, Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default Judgment (ECF No. 72) be denied, and the Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 64) be dismissed with prejudice; and (2) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 78) recommending that Plaintiff's Request for Permission to File Electronically (ECF No. 70) be denied.

BACKGROUND

On October 26, 2010, Plaintiff, a former pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On January 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 10). On May 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 12). On March 13, 2012, the Court entered an Order adopting the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, granting the motions to dismiss the second amended complaint filed by all Defendants, and dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims regarding medical treatment for his mental health issues at San Diego Central Detention Facility and dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's claims regarding his placement in a "safety cell" at San Diego Central Detention Facility. (ECF No. 62).

On April 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed the "Amended Complaint of Placement in Safety Cell," which the Court construes as the Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 64). The Third Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff's civil rights were violated when he was placed in a "safety cell" at the San Diego Central Detention Facility on May 14, 2010 and June 2, 2010. Id. at 1.

On May 4, 2012, Defendants County of San Diego, William Gore, and Captain Pena filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 65). On July 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Request for the Court to "allow [Plaintiff] to electronic[ally] file all court documents in this civil case." (ECF No. 70 at 1). On July 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default Judgment as to Defendant Dr. Noranyo. (ECF No. 72). On October 3, 2012, Defendant Dr. Noranyo filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 73).

On January 24, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motions to Dismiss be granted, the Request for Entry of Default Judgment be denied, and the Third Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 79). On January 24, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Request for Permission to File Electronically be denied. (ECF No. 78). Each Report and Recommendation states that, no later than 30 days from issuance of the Report and Recommendation, any party may file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Id. at 2; ECF No. 79 at 14.

The docket reflects that no objection to either Report and Recommendation has been filed.*fn1

REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

After review of the Report and Recommendation recommending the dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge set forth the correct legal standards for evaluating motions to dismiss and civil rights claims related to the use of "safety cells." See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539 (1979); Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978) (municipal liability); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisor liability). The Magistrate Judge correctly applied these standards to the allegations of the Third Amended Complaint and correctly found that all remaining claims against all remaining Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default Judgment and Request for Permission to File Electronically should be denied.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that each pending Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. (ECF Nos. 78, 79). The Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint filed by Defendants County of San Diego, William Gore, Captain Pena and Dr. Noranyo are GRANTED. (ECF Nos. 65, 73). Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default Judgment and Request for Permission to File Electronically are DENIED. (ECF Nos. 70, 72). The Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

United States District Judge WILLIAM Q. HAYES


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.