Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05192/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05192-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Defendant Huertas waived service and on September 6, 2005, filed a timely notice of joinder in the motion

to dismiss. (Docs. 118, 120.) The United States Marshal is still in the process of locating and serving defendant

Carbahall. (Doc. 113.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY BUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-CV-5192-REC-SMS-P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE DENIED, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

(Docs. 106 and 115) 

Plaintiff Timothy Buford (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (Americans with Disabilities Act). This

action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed January 8, 2004, against

defendants Carbahall, Bindell, Huertas, Dobbs, Cheatham, Leong, and Songer. On May 20, 2005,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, defendants Bindell, Dobbs, Cheatham, Leong, and

Songer filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff failed to request any relief and that as

individuals, they are not liable under Title II of the ADA.1 Plaintiff filed an opposition on August

10, 2005. 

There are several deficiencies that require denial of defendants’ motion. First, defendants’

motion is not properly noticed. Defendants move for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12 but defendants

///

Case 1:01-cv-05192-SMS Document 121 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

do not identify which section(s) of Rule 12 provide for dismissal on the bases set forth in their

motion and do not cite to any authority relating to the bases for dismissal.

Second, although Rule 8(a) provides that a pleading shall contain a demand for judgment for

the relief sought, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), Rule 54 provides that “every final judgment shall grant the

relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded

such relief in the party’s pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). In light of Rule 54, defendants’

conclusory assertion that plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 is insufficient to

persuade the court that plaintiff’s second amended complaint must be dismissed. In addition, as set

forth in the preceding paragraph, the precise legal basis for dismissal on this ground is not clear from

the motion.

Third, the court finds defendants’ argument that they are entitled to dismissal because they

are not proper defendants in a Title II ADA action to be inadequately briefed. Defendants seek to

have the court decide a specific issue that the Ninth Circuit has not yet weighed in on by merely

citing to statutory language and two non-binding decisions that involved Title I of the ADA. The

issue is more complicated and is worthy of more in-depth briefing than defendants’ motion would

suggest. Defendants’ cursory treatment of this issue provides an insufficient basis for the court to

grant their motion. It is the duty of defendants, not this court, to make the argument and adequately

brief the issue. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court shall recommend that defendants’ motion to dismiss be

denied, without prejudice. If defendants wish to re-raise these issues in a properly noticed motion

with adequate briefing, they are not precluded from doing so.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed

May 20, 2005, be DENIED, without prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

Case 1:01-cv-05192-SMS Document 121 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

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: September 8, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05192-SMS Document 121 Filed 09/08/05 Page 3 of 3