From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cooley v. City of Vallejo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 2, 2014
No. 2:14-cv-620-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2014)

Summary

commenting that “the Ninth Circuit [in Lockett ] appears to have broadly held that a no contest plea to criminal charges does not lead to a Heck bar of a subsequent civil rights action,” but noting that Lockett did not address other Ninth Circuit cases applying Heck in that context

Summary of this case from Aguilera v. Molina

Opinion

No. 2:14-cv-620-TLN-KJN PS

09-02-2014

FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

On July 29, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 34), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 35), which have been considered by the court. Defendants did not file any objections to the findings and recommendations.

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 34) are ADOPTED.

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 22) is denied.

3. Defendants shall answer Plaintiff's first amended complaint within 21 days of this order. Dated: September 2, 2014

/s/_________

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Cooley v. City of Vallejo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 2, 2014
No. 2:14-cv-620-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2014)

commenting that “the Ninth Circuit [in Lockett ] appears to have broadly held that a no contest plea to criminal charges does not lead to a Heck bar of a subsequent civil rights action,” but noting that Lockett did not address other Ninth Circuit cases applying Heck in that context

Summary of this case from Aguilera v. Molina
Case details for

Cooley v. City of Vallejo

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 2, 2014

Citations

No. 2:14-cv-620-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2014)

Citing Cases

Chavez v. City of California

t *8 (D. Ariz. Mar. 16, 2017) ("At first glance, the decisions in Lockett, Ove, and Szajer appear to be…

Aguilera v. Molina

Some district courts have interpreted Lockett v. Ericson, 656 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2011), as holding that Heck…