(PS) Henreid v. Haynes

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL HENREID, No. 2:23-cv-02797-DJC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RAYMOND NEAL HAYNES, DAVID SOTELO, and RICHARD SKAGGS, 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff Paul Henreid proceeds in this action in pro per. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 On April 14, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations 22 which were served on the Parties and which contained notice that any objections to 23 the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within 14 days. (ECF No. 42.) 24 Therein, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants Richard Skaggs and 25 Raymond Neal Haynes’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) be granted as to all causes of 26 action without leave to amend, and that Defendant Judge David Sotelo’s Motion to 27 Dismiss (ECF No. 19) also be granted as to all causes of action without leave to 28 amend. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that Defendants Skaggs and 1 Haynes’ Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 18) be granted in the amount of $10,000. 2 Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 43.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 4 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s 5 recommendations that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Skaggs, Haynes, and 6 Judge Sotelo be dismissed without leave to amend. Having carefully reviewed the 7 entire file, the Court finds these recommendations to be supported by the record and 8 by proper analysis. 9 The Court has also reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the 10 Court impose $10,000 in sanctions on Plaintiff for clear error, which is a significantly 11 deferential standard. See Maisonville v. F2 America, Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 747–48 (9th 12 Cir. 1990) (finding monetary sanctions imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 11 were “non-dispositive matters properly ordered by the magistrate and reviewed by 14 the district court for clear error”); see also Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. 15 Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993) (“[R]eview under the 16 ‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential, requiring a ‘definite and firm 17 conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”). Having reviewed the file, the Court 18 finds no clear error here, as the Magistrate Judge carefully considered the necessity of 19 imposing sanctions, the proper amount to impose, and any mitigating factors in 20 making his recommendation. (See ECF No. 42 at 22–25.) 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 42) filed April 14, 2025, 23 are ADOPTED in full; 24 2. Defendants Skaggs and Haynes’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) is 25 GRANTED as to all causes of action WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; 26 3. Defendant Judge Sotelo’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED 27 as to all causes of action WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and 28 //// 1 4. Defendants Skaggs and Haynes’ Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff 2 (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED in the amount of $10,000. 3 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 | Dated: August 12, 2025 “Dane J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta / UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28