(PC) Jones v. Bal et al, No. 2:2019cv01971 - Document 57 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 1/24/2023 RECOMMENDING defendant Lizzaraga's 50 unopposed motion to dismiss, be granted; Defendant Lizzaraga be dismissed with prejudice as a defendant to this action; and the matter be referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for pre-trial scheduling. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Jones v. Bal et al Doc. 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY JONES, 12 13 14 No. 2:19-CV-1971-TLN-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INDERPAL BAL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 17 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendant Lizzaraga’s unopposed motion to 19 dismiss, ECF No. 50. The remaining defendants (Smith, Wong, Covello, Omari, Masbad, 20 Martinez, Patterson, Vasquez, Leonard, Vila, Bal, Shattuck, Robert, Vaughn, and Quiring) have 21 filed an answer and do not join in the pending motion. In his unopposed motion to dismiss, Defendant Lizarraga, the former warden of 22 23 Mule Creek State Prison, argues that Plaintiff’s operative second amended complaint fails to 24 contain allegations indicating Lizzaraga’s personal involvement in the alleged constitutional 25 violations. See ECF No. 50-1. Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(c), (l), 26 the Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to Defendant Lizzaraga’s motion as 27 consent to the relief requested. The Court will, therefore, recommend that the unopposed motion 28 be granted. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that: 2 1. Defendant Lizzaraga’s unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF No. 50, be 2. Defendant Lizzaraga be dismissed with prejudice as a defendant to this 3. The matter be referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for pre-trial 3 granted; 4 5 action; and 6 7 scheduling. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 10 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 11 with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 12 Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 13 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 Dated: January 24, 2023 ____________________________________ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 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.
