Godinez v. Lara et al, No. 1:2010cv00303 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Tulare County Sheriff's Department; Visalia County Highway Patrol; Visalia Police Department; Fresno California Highway Patrol and Tulare County Highway Patrol terminated; Plaintiff shall be permitted to file an amended complaint, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 06/21/2010. (Amended Complaint due by 7/26/2010)(Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Godinez v. Lara et al Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 RICHARD GODINEZ, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) FELIX M. LARA, FRESNO CALIFORNIA ) HIGHWAY PATROL, VISALIA ) COUNTY HIGHWAY PATROL, TULARE ) COUNTY HIGHWAY PATROL, TULARE ) COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, VISALIA ) POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ) VISALIA, JOHN DOES, 1-50, ) ) Defendants. ) ) 1:10-cv-303 OWW GSA ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 7) 16 On May 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 17 recommending that several causes of action as well as several Defendants be dismissed from this 18 action. The Court further recommended that Plaintiff be allowed to file an amended complaint to 19 address specific claims. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 20 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff has not 21 filed any objections. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a 23 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 24 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated May 3, 2010, are ADOPTED IN 27 FULL; 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2. 2 3 Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution are DISMISSED; 3. 4 5 Plaintiff’s claim made pursuant to Article 1 § 13 of the California Constitution is DISMISSED; 4. 6 7 Plaintiff’s claims of a violation 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Eighth and Any causes of action against any Defendants in their official capacities. are DISMISSED; 5. 8 The following Defendants are DISMISSED from this action and the Clerk of the Court shall terminate these Defendants on the docket: 9 a) the Fresno California Highway Patrol 10 b) the Visalia County Highway Patrol 11 c) the Tulare County Highway Patrol 12 d) the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department and 13 e) the Visalia Police Department; 14 6 Plaintiff shall be permitted to file an amended complaint to include claims made 15 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for any violations of the Fourth Amendment of the 16 United States Constitution against any law enforcement officer or supervisor in 17 their individual capacity, or against the City of Visalia. The amended complaint 18 may also include a cause of action based on a violation of California Civil Code § 19 52.1; 20 7. Any amended Complaint shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of 21 service of this order. If Plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, he is 22 reminded that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Forsyth 23 v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 24 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the 25 prior or superceded pleading.” Local Rule 220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll 26 causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an 27 amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. 28 Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d 2 1 at 1474. If Plaintiff attempts to amend beyond the claims outlined above, the 2 Court will dismiss the case; and 3 8. Finally, Plaintiff is also advised that if he fails to timely file an amended 4 Complaint, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to follow the Court’s 5 order and diligently prosecute this action. 6 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 21, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
