(PC) Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail, et al, No. 2:2013cv00324 - Document 145 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 04/16/18 ORDERING the dismissals of defendants Palmer, Lopez and Nelson and plaintiff's claims related to his housing assignment, failure to protect, defamation and officers trying to incite something 24 , 109 are VACATED. The clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendant Palmer and plaintiff's claims related to his housing assignment, failure to protect, defamation, and officers "trying to incite something" be dismissed without leave to amend for the reasons set forth in the 08/12/13 screening order 24 . Defendants Lopez and Nelson be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service of process an failure to follow court orders as set forth in the 10/18/16 order 109 . Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
(PC) Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail, et al Doc. 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRELL D. HALL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-0324 AC P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 In light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 17 18 2017) (no magistrate judge jurisdiction based on plaintiff’s consent alone), the dismissal of 19 defendant Palmer and plaintiff’s claims related to his housing assignment, failure to protect, 20 defamation, and officers “trying to incite something” will be vacated, and for the reasons outlined 21 in the August 12, 2013 screening order (ECF No. 24), the undersigned will recommend to the 22 assigned District Judge that defendant Palmer and plaintiff’s claims related to his housing 23 assignment, failure to protect, defamation, and officers “trying to incite something” be dismissed 24 without leave to amend. The dismissal of defendants Lopez and Nelson for failure to timely 25 effect service will also be vacated, and for the reasons set forth in the October 18, 2016 order 26 (ECF No. 109), the undersigned will recommend that Lopez and Nelson be dismissed without 27 prejudice. 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The dismissals of defendants Palmer, Lopez, and Nelson and plaintiff’s claims related 3 to his housing assignment, failure to protect, defamation, and officers “trying to incite something” 4 (ECF Nos. 24, 109) are vacated. 5 6 2. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 7 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. Defendant Palmer and plaintiff’s claims related to his housing assignment, failure to 9 10 11 protect, defamation, and officers “trying to incite something” be dismissed without leave to amend for the reasons set forth in the August 12, 2013 screening order (ECF No. 24). 2. Defendants Lopez and Nelson be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely 12 effect service of process and failure to follow court orders as set forth in the October 18, 2016 13 order (ECF No. 109). 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that 19 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 20 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: April 16, 2018 23 24 25 26 27 28 2