From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walters v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2013
Case No. EDCV 12-0137-JAK (DTB) (C.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)

Summary

finding officials protected by qualified immunity

Summary of this case from Mooney v. Beard

Opinion

Case No. EDCV 12-0137-JAK (DTB)

05-01-2013

MARTIN E. WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. MATHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,

CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint, all the records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed herein. Having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows: (a) Plaintiff's claims against defendants in their official and individual capacities for monetary damages are dismissed without leave to amend; (b) defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's ex post facto claim against the named defendants in the official capacities for injunctive relief is denied; (c) plaintiff's ex post facto claim against the named defendants in their individual capacities for injunctive relief is dismissed with leave to amend; and (d) plaintiff's Takings Clause claim against defendants in their individual and official capacities for injunctive relief is dismissed without leave to amend.

If plaintiff still desires to pursue his ex post facto claim against the named defendants in their individual capacities for injunctive relief, he is ordered to file a Third Amended Complaint remedying the deficiencies discussed in the Report and Recommendation within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. If plaintiff does not file a Third Amended Complaint, the Court will order defendants to file an Answer to the ex post facto claim against them in their official capacities for injunctive relief. The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a blank Central District civil rights complaint form, which plaintiff is encouraged to utilize should he file a Third Amended Complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to file a Third Amended Complaint, it should bear the docket number assigned in this case; be labeled "Third Amended Complaint"; and be complete in and of itself without reference to the original Complaint, the FAC, the SAC, or any other pleading, attachment, or document.

__________________________

JOHN A. KRONSTADT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
__________________________
FULL NAME
__________________________
COMMITTED NAME (if different)
__________________________
FULL ADDRESS INCLUDING NAME OF INSTITUTION
__________________________
PRISON NUMBER (if applicable)

PLAINTIFF,

v.

DEFENDANT(S).

CASE NUMBER


__________________________

To be supplied by the Clerk


CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO (Check one)

[ ] 42 U.S.C. § 1983

[ ] Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

A. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS

1. Have you brought any other lawsuits in a federal court while a prisoner: [ ] Yes [ ] No
2. If your answer to "1." is yes, how many? __________________________
Describe the lawsuit in the space below. (If there is more than one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on an attached piece of paper using the same outline.)
a. Parties to this previous lawsuit:
Plaintiff __________________________
Defendants __________________________
b. Court __________________________
c. Docket or case number __________________________
d. Name of judge to whom case was assigned __________________________
e. Disposition (For example: Was the case dismissed? If so, what was the basis for dismissal? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?) __________________________
f. Issues raised: __________________________
g. Approximate date of filing lawsuit: __________________________
h. Approximate date of disposition __________________________

B. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

1. Is there a grievance procedure available at the institution where the events relating to your current complaint occurred? [ ] Yes [ ] No
2. Have you filed a grievance concerning the facts relating to your current complaint? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If your answer is no, explain why not __________________________
3. Is the grievance procedure completed? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If your answer is no, explain why not __________________________
4. Please attach copies of papers related to the grievance procedure.

C. JURISDICTION

This complaint alleges that the civil rights of plaintiff __________________________ (print plaintiff's name) who presently resides at __________________________, (mailing address or place of confinement) were violated by the actions of the defendant(s) named below, which actions were directed against plaintiff at __________________________ (institution/city where violation occurred) on (date or dates) __________________________, (Claim I) __________________________, (Claim II) __________________________. (Claim III) NOTE: You need not name more than one defendant or allege more than one claim. If you are naming more than five (5) defendants, make a copy of this page to provide the information for additional defendants.

1. Defendant __________________________ (full name of first defendant) resides or works at __________________________ (full address of first defendant) __________________________ (defendant's position and title, if any)
The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): [ ] individual [ ] official capacity.
Explain how this defendant was acting under color of law:
__________________________
2. Defendant __________________________ __________________________ (full name of first defendant) resides or works at __________________________ (full address of first defendant) __________________________ (defendant's position and title, if any)
The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): [ ] individual [ ] official capacity.
Explain how this defendant was acting under color of law:
__________________________
3. Defendant __________________________ (full name of first defendant) resides or works at __________________________ (full address of first defendant) __________________________ (defendant's position and title, if any)
The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): [ ] individual [ ] official capacity.
Explain how this defendant was acting under color of law:
__________________________
4. Defendant __________________________ (full name of first defendant) resides or works at __________________________ (full address of first defendant) __________________________ (defendant's position and title, if any)
The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): [ ] individual [ ] official capacity.
Explain how this defendant was acting under color of law:
__________________________
5. Defendant __________________________ (full name of first defendant) resides or works at __________________________ (full address of first defendant) __________________________ (defendant's position and title, if any)
The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): [ ] individual [ ] official capacity.
Explain how this defendant was acting under color of law:
__________________________

D. CLAIMS*

CLAIM I

The following civil right has been violated:

__________________________

Supporting Facts: Include all facts you consider important. State the facts clearly, in your own words, and without citing legal authority or argument. Be certain you describe, in separately numbered paragraphs, exactly what each DEFENDANT (by name) did to violate your right.

*If there is more than one claim, describe the additional claim(s) on another attached piece ofpaper using the same outline.

E. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

I believe that I am entitled to the following specific relief:

__________________________

__________________________

(Signature of Plaintiff)


Summaries of

Walters v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2013
Case No. EDCV 12-0137-JAK (DTB) (C.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)

finding officials protected by qualified immunity

Summary of this case from Mooney v. Beard
Case details for

Walters v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN E. WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. MATHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 1, 2013

Citations

Case No. EDCV 12-0137-JAK (DTB) (C.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)

Citing Cases

Mooney v. Beard

"No court has held that a prison official's collection of an administrative fee authorized by Section 2085.5…