(PS) Benson v. CA Correctional Peace Officers Assn, No. 2:2008cv00886 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 01/26/09 ORDERING that the Clerk shall reassigned this case to JFM nunc pro tunc effective 11/18/08; the 25 Findings and Recommendations are amended as set forth in this order; Plaintiff's 1/20/09 amended complaint is timely filed; and Defendants shall file their responsive pleadings within 20 days from the date of this order. (Streeter, J)

Download PDF
(PS) Benson v. CA Correctional Peace Officers Assn Doc. 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 TELICIA BENSON, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-0886 JFM vs. 13 14 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, 15 DEBBIE ROLLINS, JEFF NICOLAYSEN, MARY BURTON, 16 Defendants. 17 / 18 ORDER On January 13, 2009, counsel for defendants inquired as to the status of the court’s 19 jurisdiction in light of the parties’ consent to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(c). A review of the docket reflects plaintiff filed her consent on November 5, 2008; 21 defendants filed their consent on November 17, 2008. This action should have been reassigned to 22 the undersigned shortly thereafter. Good cause appearing, the above-captioned case shall be 23 reassigned and referred to the undersigned for all further proceedings and entry of final judgment. 24 Said assignment shall be entered nunc pro tunc, effective November 18, 2008. 25 In light of this reassignment, the findings and recommendations issued December 26 19, 2008 are amended as follows: 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 A. The title is amended to read “Order.” 2 B. Page three (lines 24-26) and page four are amended to read as follows: 3 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Defendants’ November 17, 2008 motion to dismiss (#15) is partially granted; 5 2. Plaintiff's claim for relief pursuant to Title V of the American with Disabilities Act is dismissed as to all defendants because plaintiff failed to first exhaust her administrative remedies. 6 7 8 9 10 3. Plaintiff’s claim for relief pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is dismissed as to all defendants because plaintiff failed to first exhaust her administrative remedies. 4. Plaintiff’s claim for relief pursuant to Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act is dismissed as to defendants Debbie Rollins, Jeff Nicolaysen and Mary Burton because the complaint fails to state a claim for relief as to those defendants. 11 12 13 14 15 16 5. Plaintiff’s claim for relief for violation of the Equal Pay Act is dismissed as to defendants Debbie Rollins, Jeff Nicolaysen and Mary Burton because the complaint fails to state a claim for relief as to those defendants. 6. Plaintiff is granted thirty days in which to file an amended complaint alleging that defendant CCPOA failed to accommodate plaintiff’s disability (stress) in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and that defendant CCPOA violated the Equal Pay Act. 17 The remainder of the December 19, 2008 filing stands as written. 18 Plaintiff timely filed her amended complaint on January 20, 2009. Defendants 19 shall file their responsive pleading within twenty days from the date of this order. 20 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. The Clerk of the Court shall reassign this case to the undersigned nunc pro tunc, 22 effective November 18, 2008. Henceforth, the caption on documents filed in the reassigned case 23 shall be shown as No. 2:08-cv-0886 JFM PS. 24 2. The findings and recommendations filed December 19, 2008 are amended as set 25 forth above. 26 3. Plaintiff’s January 20, 2009 amended complaint is timely filed. 2 1 4. Defendants shall file their responsive pleading within twenty days from the date 2 of this order. 3 DATED: January 26, 2009. 4 5 6 7 /001; benson.amd 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.