(PC) Kaddoura v. Cate et al, No. 1:2011cv01422 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants and ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Either File an Amended Complaint or Notify the Court of Willingness to Proceed Only Against Defendants Calhoun and Darbi, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/20/2012. Amended Complaint or Notice due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Kaddoura v. Cate et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 HOSAM KADDOURA, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:11-cv–01422-LJO-BAM PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., (ECF Nos. 22, 23, 24) Defendants. THIRTY DAY DEADLINE / 14 15 Plaintiff Hosam Kaddoura is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 16 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 17 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On October 29, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein 19 which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the 20 Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 23.) On November 21 16, 2012, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to Grant Leave to Amend and Correct 22 Deficiencies and Reconsideration of Findings and Recommendations Based on Corrected 23 Deficiencies” in which he requests reconsideration of the Findings and Recommendations and seeks 24 leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 24.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as 25 an Objection to the Findings and Recommendation. 26 In his Objection, Plaintiff states that he did not understand Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 27 18 and 20. However, Plaintiff correctly sets forth what was required to state a claim. The issue with 28 Plaintiff’s amended complaint was that the facts do not state a claim for relief for a violation of his 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 due process rights based on the rule violation hearing, and therefore, the claims against Defendants 2 Bickett, Bergthold, Bogle, Bangi, Gilmore, Allen, Spatola, Bird, and Does are not appropriately 3 joined in this action. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue the claims against these individuals he needs to 4 bring the claims in a separate action. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 6 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 7 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 29, 2012, is adopted in full; 10 2. Plaintiff’s First, Second, Third, and Seventh Causes of Action are dismissed, without 11 leave to amend, as improperly joined in this action under Federal Rules of Civil 12 Procedure 18 and 20; 13 3. 14 Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 15 4. 16 Plaintiff’s Tenth Cause of Action is dismissed, without leave to amend, as barred by the Favorable Termination Rule; 17 5. 18 Defendants Bickell, Bergthold, Bogle, Bangi, Gilmore, Allen, Spatola, Bird, and Does are dismissed from this action as improperly joined under Rules 18 and 20; and 19 6. 20 Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either: a. 21 File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in the Findings and Recommendations, or 22 b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended 23 complaint and is willing to proceed only against Defendants Calhoun and 24 Darbi. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: b9ed48 November 20, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 2

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.