Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02244/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02244-3/pdf.json

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

---

1

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD CARLOS DIAZ, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE 

SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

Consolidated Civil Case No.: 

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

[ECF No. 52]

On September 28, 2017, Defendant Dr. F. Sedighi (“Defendant”) filed a Motion to 

Dismiss certain claims in Plaintiff Ronald Carlos Diaz, Sr.’s First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”). (ECF 52 (“Motion”).) On September 29, 2017 the Court set a briefing 

schedule on the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff has filed an Opposition 

(ECF No. 61 (“Opposition”).) Defendant has filed a Reply. (ECF No. 62.) For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court recommends the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss does not seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment Claim for deliberate indifference. (Mot. at 1 n.2.) Defendant only seeks 

dismissal of Plaintiff’s newly added claims under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 63 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

Amendments and his state law claims. (Mot. at 1 (summarizing claims at issue).) 

Plaintiff’s Opposition is largely focused on his Eighth Amendment claim, (Opp’n. at 1-

3), presumably in the mistaken belief that Defendant was seeking dismissal of that claim 

again.1 As to the claims at issue in the Motion,2 Plaintiff agrees they should be 

dismissed. (Opp’n. at 3.) Plaintiff states “Plaintiff agrees that he made a mistake on 

adding the late state law claims and ask[s] the Court to just go ahead and VACATE THE 

MISTAKEN STATE LAW CLAIMS (AND) just go ahead and also VACATE 

PLAINTIFFS NEWLY ADDED FEDERAL CLAIMS under the First, Fifth, and 

Fourteenth Amendments.” (Opp’n. at 3.) Because Plaintiff agrees that the claims 

Defendant moves to dismiss should be dismissed, the Motion to Dismiss should be 

GRANTED. 

CONCLUSION

The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District 

Judge Dana M. Sabraw. For the reasons outlined above, the undersigned 

RECOMMENDS the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

 

1 As to the other issues raised in the Opposition, those issues are not properly raised in 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. As noted above, Defendant did not 

move to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim that Plaintiff discusses at length. 

Plaintiff’s statements regarding Defendant’s request to modify the Scheduling Order are 

not appropriately raised in an Opposition and are moot as the Court has denied 

Defendant’s request to modify the Scheduling Order. If Plaintiff seeks to modify the 

Scheduling Order, he must file a separate motion, identify the specific dates he seeks to 

modify, and state why the date should be modified. Finally, Plaintiff questions whether 

the U.S. Marshal Service has served newly added Defendant Newton. This is not 

properly raised in response to a motion filed by a different defendant. However, the Court 

notes that the docket in this case reflects that when the summons was issued on the FAC, 

Plaintiff was sent a letter with instructions for completing service via the U.S. Marshal’s 

Service. The docket does not currently contain any record of service of Dr. Newton. 

2 The Court cites the CM/ECF pagination for ease of reference.

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 63 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party to this action may file written 

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties no later than November 17, 

2017. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any Reply to the Objections shall be filed with 

the Court and served on all parties no later than November 28, 2017. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s Order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 

449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: November 2, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 63 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3