(PC)Sandoval v. Lopez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIO SANDOVAL, Case No.: 1:23-cv-0248 JLT SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, AND TERMINATING 14 M. LOPEZ, et al., PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AS MOOT 15 Defendants. (Docs. 24, 43, 44) 16 17 Julio Sandoval seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his rights under the 18 Eighth Amendment while housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. (See 19 Doc. 16.) Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, asserting Plaintiff 20 failed to state a cognizable claim and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 24.) 21 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that Defendants acted 22 with deliberate indifference. (Doc. 43 at 8-13.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended 23 the Court grant the motion to dismiss. (Id. at 13.) Based upon the finding that dismissal for 24 failure to state a claim was appropriate, the magistrate judge declined to address to address the 25 issue of qualified immunity. (Id. at 13-14.) The magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff filed the 26 FAC before the Court had an opportunity to screen the original complaint, and Plaintiff was “not 27 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.) 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 2 || any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 43 at 14.) The Court advised the parties the 3 | “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on 4 | appeal.” (7d. at 14-15, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) 5 | Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. However, 6 | Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint on December 30, 2024, which includes a 7 | request that he be granted 60 days to amend. (Doc. 45.) 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 9 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 10 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 17, 2024 (Doc. 43) are 12 ADOPTED in full. 13 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 24) is GRANTED, with leave to amend. 14 3. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days 15 of the date of this order. 16 A, The motion for leave to amend (Doc. 45) is terminated as MOOT. 17 Failure to file an amended complaint as ordered will result in dismissal without 18 prejudice failure to prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 8, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28