(PS) Caldwell v. Downs et al, No. 2:2017cv01250 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/22/18. The court DECLINES to adopt the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 and instead REFERS the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings to develop the record as necessary fo r consideration of whether the information contained in Plaintiff's objections justifies granting further leave to amend, or whether the legal analysis supporting the findings and recommendations merely requires supplementation. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
(PS) Caldwell v. Downs et al Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEAH CALDWELL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-1250 KJM AC v. ORDER DORIS L. DOWNS and WENDY L. SHOOB, Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 18 19 United States Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On July 25, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 6. On August 14, 2017, 23 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Objections, ECF No. 7. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 26 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court presumes findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 27 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Having reviewed the file, the court finds plaintiff’s verified objections raise new 2 information that may change the magistrate judge’s recommendation because plaintiff appears to 3 provide facts indicating certain of Judge Doris Brown’s actions may have exceeded the bounds of 4 judicial immunity. See Objections at 4 (declaring, under penalty of perjury, that Judge Downs 5 “entered the private vehicle of opposing counsel,” “followed directly behind the plaintiff’s 6 vehicle (stalking) for several miles . . . cornering the plaintiff and her children on the streets” and 7 “ordered the children into the plaintiff’s ex-husband’s car in a commercial parking lot.”). Cf. 8 Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 731 (1980) 9 (judges “promulgating” code of conduct for attorneys do not get judicial immunity because 10 “promulgating rules” is a legislative function; but they do get legislative immunity); Forrester v. 11 White, 484 U.S. 219, 228-29 (1988) (judges “enforcing” the Bar Code would be treated like 12 prosecutors for immunity purposes.). 13 In light of plaintiff’s objections, without making any credibility determinations, the court 14 DECLINES to adopt the findings and recommendations and instead REFERS the matter back to 15 the magistrate judge for further proceedings to develop the record as necessary for consideration 16 of whether the information contained in plaintiff’s objections justifies granting further leave to 17 amend, or whether the legal analysis supporting the findings and recommendations merely 18 requires supplementation. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 This resolves ECF No. 6. 21 DATED: August 22, 2018. 22 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.