From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 16, 2018
No. 2:13-cv-0324 AC P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2:13-cv-0324 AC P

04-16-2018

TERRELL D. HALL, Plaintiff, v. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017) (no magistrate judge jurisdiction based on plaintiff's consent alone), the dismissal of defendant Palmer and plaintiff's claims related to his housing assignment, failure to protect, defamation, and officers "trying to incite something" will be vacated, and for the reasons outlined in the August 12, 2013 screening order (ECF No. 24), the undersigned will recommend to the assigned District Judge that defendant Palmer and plaintiff's claims related to his housing assignment, failure to protect, defamation, and officers "trying to incite something" be dismissed without leave to amend. The dismissal of defendants Lopez and Nelson for failure to timely effect service will also be vacated, and for the reasons set forth in the October 18, 2016 order (ECF No. 109), the undersigned will recommend that Lopez and Nelson be dismissed without prejudice. ////

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The dismissals of defendants Palmer, Lopez, and Nelson and plaintiff's claims related to his housing assignment, failure to protect, defamation, and officers "trying to incite something" (ECF Nos. 24, 109) are vacated.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Palmer and plaintiff's claims related to his housing assignment, failure to protect, defamation, and officers "trying to incite something" be dismissed without leave to amend for the reasons set forth in the August 12, 2013 screening order (ECF No. 24).

2. Defendants Lopez and Nelson be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service of process and failure to follow court orders as set forth in the October 18, 2016 order (ECF No. 109).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: April 16, 2018

/s/_________

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 16, 2018
No. 2:13-cv-0324 AC P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018)
Case details for

Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail

Case Details

Full title:TERRELL D. HALL, Plaintiff, v. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Apr 16, 2018

Citations

No. 2:13-cv-0324 AC P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018)