(PS) Altstatt et al v. City of Sacramento et al, No. 2:2018cv00150 - Document 85 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/2/18 adopting 75 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Motions to Dismiss 9 , 21 , 24 , 46 and 48 are GRANTED. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
(PS) Altstatt et al v. City of Sacramento et al Doc. 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 DANIEL JAMES ALTSTATT and KIM EILEEN GLAZZARD, Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 15 No. 2:18-cv-00150 JAM AC (PS) CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States 18 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On May 21, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 20 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF NO. 75. Plaintiff 23 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 79. 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. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 21, 2018, are adopted in full; 3 2. Hon. Kevin Culhane, Hon. Robert C. Hight and the Superior Court of the State of 4 California’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED and all claims against them are 5 DISMISSED with prejudice; 6 7 3. Defendant Gov. Jerry Brown’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED and all claims against him are DISMISSED with prejudice; 8 9 4. The City Employee Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 48 (motion; see also ECF Nos. 51 and 59 (joinders)) are GRANTED and all claims are dismissed against them. State 10 claims are dismissed with prejudice, and federal claims (the Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth cause of 11 action) are dismissed with leave to amend as to any conduct occurring on or after January 23, 12 2016; 13 5. The City of Sacramento’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED and all claims 14 against the city DISMISSED. With limited to leave to amend plaintiffs’ Third, Fourth, Fifth, 15 Eighth and Ninth causes of action for conduct occurring on or after January 23, 2016; and 16 6. Kip Proctor’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED and all claims against 17 him are dismissed with leave to amend, subject to the applicable statues of limitations (conduct 18 occurring on or after January 23, 2016 for personal injury, January 23 2015 for trespass and 19 January 23, 2017 for defamation). 20 21 22 23 DATED: July 2, 2018 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2