Opinion
2:17-cv-02421-TLN-DMC
09-22-2021
ROGER GIFFORD, Plaintiff, v. PETER KAMPA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.
On March 25, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. (ECF No. 71.) Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. (ECF No. 75.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 25, 2021, (ECF No. 71), are adopted in full;
2. Defendant Winston's Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 24), is granted as to Plaintiffs federal claims and Defendant Winston is dismissed with prejudice;
3. The HCSD Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 26), is granted as to Plaintiffs federal claims;
4. Plaintiffs federal claims are dismissed as follows:
a. Plaintiffs due process claims are dismissed with leave to amend;
b. Plaintiffs equal protection claims are dismissed with leave to amend;
c. Plaintiffs retaliation claim is dismissed with leave to amend;
d. Plaintiffs claims relating to the denial of the right to vote are dismissed with leave to amend;
e. Plaintiffs federal statutory claims are dismissed with prejudice;
5. Defendant's Motions to Dismiss are denied as to Plaintiffs state law claims, without prejudice to renewal upon the filing of a further amended complaint;
6. Defendant Winston's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs state law claims, (ECF No. 25); and motion to revoke Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status, declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and require Plaintiff to pose security, (ECF No. 39), are denied without prejudice to renewal upon the filing of a further amended complaint;
7. Plaintiffs Motions for Default Judgment, (ECF Nos. 65 and 66), are denied because Plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to relief on any of his federal claims and the Court has not decided whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims; and
8. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.