(PC) Arzaga v. Santiago et al, No. 2:2018cv00313 - Document 129 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/20/2022 ADOPTING in FULL 119 Findings and Recommendations. Defendant Santiago is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. ADOPTING in FULL 120 Findings and Recommendations. GRANTING 108 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by res judicata. CASE CLOSED(Reader, L)

Download PDF

(PC) Arzaga v. Santiago et al Doc. 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL ARZAGA, 12 No. 2:18-cv-0313 KJM KJN P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER E. SANTIAGO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Two sets of findings and recommendations are 20 presently pending. 21 April 14, 2022 Findings and Recommendations 22 On April 14, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 23 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 24 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections to the 25 findings and recommendations.1 26 1 27 28 Plaintiff objects that he addressed defendant Santiago and other defendants in his opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 125 at 1-2.) However, the April 14, 2022 findings and recommendations addressed the order to show cause why defendant Santiago should not be dismissed from the action based on multiple failed attempts to serve Santiago. (ECF No. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 3 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 4 Defendant Santiago is dismissed from this action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 5 April 28, 2022 Findings and Recommendations 6 On April 28, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 7 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 8 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections to the 9 findings and recommendations. Defendants Gisler and Pak filed a response. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 11 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 12 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Because 13 this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed 14 by defendants Gisler and Pak is granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice.2 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 14, 2022 (ECF No. 119) are adopted in 17 full; 18 19 2. Defendant Santiago is dismissed from this action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 20 3. The findings and recommendations filed April 28, 2022 (ECF No. 120) are adopted in 21 full; 22 ///// 23 24 25 26 27 28 110.) As addressed by the footnote in the April 14, 2022 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 119 at 1 n.1), plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 112) sought an extension of time to oppose the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendants Gisler and Pak, and did not address defendant Santiago or the January 19, 2022 order to show cause. Plaintiff did not file a response to the order to show cause. 2 Defendants Haluik and Victoriano were dismissed from this action on December 16, 2021. (ECF No. 106.) 2 1 4. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 108) is granted; and 2 5. This action is dismissed with prejudice as barred by res judicata. 3 DATED: September 20, 2022. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.