Edward Plummer, Jr v. County of Los Angeles

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD PLUMMER, JR., ) NO. CV 20-4568-SB (AGR) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED ) STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 18 Complaint, the records on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States 19 Magistrate Judge (“Report”), the Objections and the Response. Further, the Court 20 has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has 21 objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate 22 Judge. 23 Although Plaintiff objects to the Report’s recommendation that his claims on 24 behalf of his mother be dismissed for lack of standing, Plaintiff acknowledges that his 25 petition for letters of special administration remains pending in state court. (Obj. at 26 9.) Plaintiff cites inapposite cases that address the separate question of subject 27 matter jurisdiction. (Obj. at 9-10.) Plaintiff provides no basis for leave to amend. 28 See Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 1046, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2018) 1 would be named, if at all, by state court after expiration of statute of limitations). 2 Plaintiff further objects that he “clearly requested that the Court investigate his 3 allegations” and believes the investigation would unearth evidence that would “alter 4 the current determination as to the statute of limitations regarding the state claims.” 5 (Obj. at 3-4.) The Court does not conduct investigations on behalf of one party. 6 Plaintiff’s remaining objections are without merit. 7 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended 8 Complaint is granted as follows: 9 (1) Defendants' motion to dismiss claims brought on Ms. Haughton's behalf 10 for lack of standing is granted and such claims are dismissed without leave to amend; 11 (2) Defendants' motion to dismiss claims brought on Plaintiff's own behalf 12 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a) is granted without leave to amend as to all claims based 13 on events prior to Ms. Haughton's transfer to Malora on May 28, 2015; (b) with leave 14 to amend as to any remaining claims against the individual defendants in their 15 individual capacity; and (c) with leave to amend as to an equal protection claim 16 against the County; 17 (3) Defendants' motion to dismiss claims brought on Plaintiff's own behalf 18 under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 is granted with leave to amend; 19 (4) Defendants' motion to dismiss claims brought under the Elder Abuse 20 and Extortion Act or the Elder Justice Act is granted without leave to amend; 21 (5) Defendants' motion to dismiss the state law claims is granted; 22 (6) Defendants' motion for more definite statement is denied; 23 (7) The individual defendants in their official capacity are dismissed without 24 prejudice as duplicative; and 25 (8) Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint consistent 26 with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation within 30 days after the 27 entry of this order. 28 If Plaintiff chooses to file a Second Amended Complaint, it must be filed within 1 || 30 days after entry of this Order, it must bear the docket number assigned to this 2 || case, be labeled “Second Amended Complaint,” and be complete in and of itself 3 || without reference to the original complaint, attachment, pleading or other documents. 4 Plaintiff is advised that if he does not file a Second Amended Complaint, this 5 || action would proceed only against the County on Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment 6 || due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on events after Ms. Haughton's 7 || transfer to Malora Post Acute Rehabilitation Hospital on May 28, 2015. 8 9 tS 10 | DATED: September 22, 2021 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28