Opinion
1:19-cv-01054-NE-BAM (PC)
09-19-2021
REBIO RONNIE TOWNSEND, Plaintiff, v. HEMELA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 41)
Plaintiff Rebio Ronnie Townsend is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is being detained pursuant to California's Mentally Disordered Offender (“MDO”) law, California Penal Code §§ 2970, et seq. Individuals detained under the MDO law are considered civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). Pursuant to the March 3, 2020 order adopting previously issued findings and recommendations in part, dismissing certain claims, and allowing one claim to proceed, this action proceeds against defendants Hemela, Kilcrease, and Gill on plaintiff's claim that the manner by which plaintiff's forced medication has been carried out is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. No. 13.)
In response to the complaint, defendant Gill filed a motion to dismiss on May 26, 2020, and defendant Kilcrease filed a motion to dismiss on July 2, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 21-24, 26.)
Defendant Hemela filed an answer to the complaint on September 8, 2020, and did not join in either motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 31.)
On August 24, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants Gill and Kilcrease be denied. (Doc. No. 41.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 13.) Defendant Kilcrease filed objections on September 3, 2021, and defendant Gill filed objections on September 7, 20201. (Doc. Nos. 42, 43.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case, including defendants Kilcrease and Gill's objections. None of the objections provide a legal basis on which to question the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 24, 2021, (ECF No. 41), are adopted in full;
2. Defendant Gill's motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 21), is denied;
3. Defendant Kilcrease's motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 26), is denied; and
4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.