(PC) Trujillo v. Munoz, No. 1:2014cv01215 - Document 46 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 44 Findings and Recommendations, dismissing certain claims and defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/6/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 v. C/O MUNOZ, et al., Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01215-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. Nos. 44, 45) 17 Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Previously, this action was dismissed for the failure to state a cognizable claim, on May 17, 21 2016. (Doc. No. 21.) On February 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded 22 the action to this Court. (Doc. No. 30.) Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found that all the parties, 23 including unserved defendants, had not consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge, 24 and therefore the dismissal order was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings 25 pursuant to Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017). (Id.) The Ninth Circuit’s mandate 26 was issued on August 3, 2018. (Doc. No. 33.) 27 Following an additional amendment of Plaintiff’s complaint, on September 25, 2018, the 28 assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed 1 1 on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants Munoz and Alvarez for cruel and unusual 2 punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, 3 and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 44.) Plaintiff was notified and given 4 sixty (60) days to file his objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id. at 8.) On October 11, 5 2018, Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 45.)1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 6 7 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case, including Plaintiff’s objection. 8 undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 9 analysis. The 10 Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of this claim against Officer John Doe, asserting that he can 11 state sufficient facts to state a claim. However, Plaintiff has been provided the legal standards and been 12 given multiple opportunities to state such a claim. The statements in his objection are conclusory, and 13 do not show that he can sufficiently state such a claim. Therefore, it is appropriate to dismiss that 14 unnamed defendant. See Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (denying leave to 15 amend when additional amendment would be futile); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th. Cir. 16 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987). 17 Plaintiff also states that he seeks a polygraph examination of Defendants. Section 3293 of Title 18 15, cited to by Plaintiff, provides for the administration of a polygraph exam by prison officials during 19 a prison investigation. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3293 (2009). The section has no applicability to this 20 civil suit in federal court. There is no entitlement to the administration of polygraph examinations in 21 this action, and Plaintiff's request is therefore denied. 22 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. adopted in full; 24 25 The findings and recommendations issued on September 25, 2018 (Doc. No. 44), are /// 26 27 1 28 Plaintiff was given a lengthy period of time to file objections based on information that he would have some limitations on his access to his legal paperwork. (See Doc. No. 44, at 2.) 2 1 2. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants Munoz 2 and Alvarez for cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 3 retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 4 3. relief may be granted; and 5 6 7 All other claims and defendants are dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 6, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3