(PC)Sandoval v. Lopez

Opinion

JULIO SANDOVAL, Case No.: 1:23-cv-0248 JLT SKO (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, AND TERMINATING M. LOPEZ, et al., PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AS MOOT Defendants. (Docs. 24, 43, 44) Julio Sandoval seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his rights under the Eighth Amendment while housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. (See Doc. 16.) Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, asserting Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 24.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference. (Doc. 43 at 8-13.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court grant the motion to dismiss. (Id. at 13.) Based upon the finding that dismissal for failure to state a claim was appropriate, the magistrate judge declined to address to address the issue of qualified immunity. (Id. at 13-14.) The magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff filed the FAC before the Court had an opportunity to screen the original complaint, and Plaintiff was “not previously… advised of any defects in a complaint.” (Id. at 14, n. 5.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff be granted leave to amend. (Id. at 14.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 43 at 14.) The Court advised the parties the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (7d. at 14-15, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. However, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint on December 30, 2024, which includes a request that he be granted 60 days to amend. (Doc. 45.) According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 17, 2024 (Doc. 43) are ADOPTED in full. 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 24) is GRANTED, with leave to amend. 3. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. A, The motion for leave to amend (Doc. 45) is terminated as MOOT. Failure to file an amended complaint as ordered will result in dismissal without prejudice failure to prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order. Dated: _ January 8, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE