Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Martin E. Walters v. Mathew Cate

May 1, 2013

MARTIN E. WALTERS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MATHEW CATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Kronstadt United States District Judge

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint, all the records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed herein. Having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows: (a) Plaintiff's claims against defendants in their official and individual capacities for monetary damages are dismissed without leave to amend; (b) defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's ex post facto claim against the named defendants in the official capacities for injunctive relief is denied; (c) plaintiff's ex post facto claim against the named defendants in their individual capacities for injunctive relief is dismissed with leave to amend; and (d) plaintiff's Takings Clause claim against defendants in their individual and official capacities for injunctive relief is dismissed without leave to amend.

If plaintiff still desires to pursue his ex post facto claim against the named defendants in their individual capacities for injunctive relief, he is ordered to file a Third Amended Complaint remedying the deficiencies discussed in the Report and Recommendation within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. If plaintiff does not file a Third Amended Complaint, the Court will order defendants to file an Answer to the ex post facto claim against them in their official capacities for injunctive relief. The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a blank Central District civil rights complaint form, which plaintiff is encouraged to utilize should he file a Third Amended Complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to file a Third Amended Complaint, it should bear the docket number assigned in this case; be labeled "Third Amended Complaint"; and be complete in and of itself without reference to the original Complaint, the FAC, the SAC, or any other pleading, attachment, or document.

COMMITTED NAME (if different)

FULL ADDRESS INCLUDING NAME OF INSTITUTION

PRISON NUMBER (if applicable)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NUMBER

To be supplied by the Clerk

PLAINTIFF, v. DEFENDANT(S).

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO (Check one) G 42 U.S.C. § 1983 G Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

PREVIOUS LAWSUITS

Have you brought any other lawsuits in a federal court while a prisoner: G Yes G No If your answer to "1." is yes, how many?

Describe the lawsuit in the space below. (If there is more than one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on an attached piece of paper using the same outline.)

a. Parties to this previous lawsuit: Plaintiff

Defendants

b. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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