Adrian Gonzalez v. City of Indio, et al.

Opinion

ADRIAN GONZALEZ, No. ED CV 26-953-PA(E)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,

CITY OF INDIO, ET AL., CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendants.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, all of the records herein and the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which any objections have been made. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff’s claims against the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend; (2) Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed with leave to amend; and (3) Plaintiff is granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint consistent with the Report and Recommendation and this Order. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint. Any First Amended Complaint must be complete in itself and not refer in any manner to the prior Complaint. Plaintiff may not add any new Defendants without leave of Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Failure timely to file a First Amended Complaint in conformity with this Order may result in the dismissal of the action. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 909 (2003) (court may dismiss action for failure to follow court order); Simon v. Value Behav. Health, Inc., 208 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.), amended, 234 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1104 (2001), overruled on other grounds, Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 985 (2007) (en banc) (affirming dismissal without leave to amend where plaintiff failed to correct complaint’s deficiencies, court had afforded plaintiff opportunities to do so, and court had given plaintiff notice of the substantive problems with his claims); Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 40, County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 439 (9th Cir. 1997) (denial of leave of amend appropriate where further amendment would be futile). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve forthwith a copy of this Order and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff and on all counsel of record. Dated: May 21, 2026. .

PERCY ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE