(PC) Jones v. Sherman et al, No. 1:2021cv01093 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 31 Findings and Recommendations, Recommending that 23 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be Granted in Part and that Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice be Denied, signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 9/13/2022. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRACY JONES, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 1:21-cv-01093-DAD-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. STUART SHERMAN, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED IN PART AND THAT DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE BE DENIED (Doc. No. 31) 18 19 Plaintiff Tracy Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 20 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On March 11, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 23 recommending that the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Stuart Sherman and D. Lopez be 24 granted in part and that defendants’ request for judicial notice be denied. (Doc. No. 31.) The 25 findings and recommendations were served on the parties and permitted them twenty-one days to 26 file objections, and then fourteen days thereafter to file a response to any objections. (Id. at 21.) 27 On March 29, 2022, defendants filed objections. (Doc. No. 32). To date, plaintiff has filed no 28 response to the objections, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including defendants’ 3 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, 6 1. 7 The findings and recommendations issued on March 11, 2022 (Doc. No. 31) are adopted in full; 8 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 23) is granted in part; 9 3. Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief is dismissed, without prejudice to plaintiff 10 11 12 13 14 15 filing a motion for leave to amend if a request for declaratory relief becomes necessary; 4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as to the request to dismiss plaintiff’s claim because they are entitled to qualified immunity; 5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as to the request to dismiss plaintiff’s request for punitive damages; and 6. Defendants’ request for judicial notice is denied. 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 13, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.