(PC) Daniels v. Monroe/Lienberger Detention Centers et al, No. 2:2014cv02176 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/24/2015 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed as to defendants Castenada, Yakimtsev, Fristole and Chang; and plaintiff be permitted to proceed on the original complaint against defendants Torres, Garcia, Galey and Gall. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANDRY DANIELS, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:14-cv-2176 KJM CKD P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MONROE/LIENBERGER DETENTION CENTERS, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff commenced this action on September 19, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On October 28, 19 2014, the undersigned determined that service was appropriate for defendants Torres, Garcia, 20 Galey, and Gall, and recommended that all other defendants be dismissed. (ECF No. 4.) Torres, 21 Garcia, Galey, and Gall have answered the complaint. (ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14 & 15.) 22 On April 8, 2015, the district judge dismissed the complaint and granted plaintiff leave to 23 file an amended complaint in an attempt to state a cognizable claim against defendants Castenada, 24 Yakimtsev, Fristole, and Chan. (ECF No. 11.) On April 27, 2015, plaintiff was granted an 25 extension of time until June 30, 2015 to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 19.) That deadline 26 has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 28 1. This action be dismissed as to defendants Castenada, Yakimtsev, Fristole, and Chan. 1 1 2 3 See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and 2. Plaintiff be permitted to proceed on the original complaint against defendants Torres, Garcia, Galey, and Gall. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 6 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 7 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 8 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 9 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 10 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 Dated: July 24, 2015 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 2 / dani2176.fta_fr(2) 17 18 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.