Pearson v. Bakersfield Police Department, No. 1:2018cv00372 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 13 Findings and Recommendations Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/23/18. Officers Thomas, Arvizu and Montgomery added. Bakersfield Police Department (VCAT Team) terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORY JOE PEARSON, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 v. BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-0372 - LJO - JLT ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. 13) On August 2, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge determined Plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to 18 support his claims against Officers Thomas, Arvizu, Montgomery, and the “Doe” officers. However, 19 the magistrate judge concluded Plaintiff failed to allege cognizable claims against other officers, the 20 City of Bakersfield, or the Bakersfield Police Department in the Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, 21 the magistrate judge recommended the claims against the other officers, the City, and the police 22 department be dismissed without leave to amend. (Doc. 13) 23 Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendation that the claims 24 and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. 13 at 10) In addition, Plaintiff was “advised that failure to file 25 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id. at 4, 26 citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th 27 Cir. 2014)). To date, no objections have been filed. 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United 1 1 School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 2 Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported 3 by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. IN FULL; 6 7 The Findings and Recommendations dated August 2, 2018 (Doc. 13) are ADOPTED 2. Plaintiff’s claim under Section 1983 against the City of Bakersfield; the Bakersfield 8 Police Department; Officers Martinez, Juarez, Duenas, Allred, and Gregory are 9 DISMISSED without leave to amend; 10 3. DISMISSED as defendants in the action; 11 12 4. The City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Police Department are DISMISSED as defendants in this action; and 13 14 Bakersfield police officers Martinez, Juarez, Duenas, Allred, and Gregory are 5. The action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force against Officers Thomas, Arvizu, Montgomery, and the “Doe” officers. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ August 23, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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.