Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01633/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01633-3/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 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORIANO MILLARE, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

G. STRATTON, et al., 

 Defendants.

 Case No.: 16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

RE: DEFENDANT CORCORAN’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

[ECF No. 31] 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States 

District Judge Cynthia Bashant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local 

Civil Rule 72.1(c) of the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of California. 

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court RECOMMENDS Defendant 

J. Corcoran’s Partial Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Plaintiff Moriano Millare is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3). On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 13
 2 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s Complaint 

sets forth various claims against seventeen individuals alleging that they 

retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment, imposed cruel 

and unusual conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, 

violated California Government Code § 19572(f), failed to comply with several 

California Codes of Regulation and failed to enforce the Department of 

Corrections Operations Manual (“DOM”). (Id. at 31-57). 

On December 19, 2016, twelve Defendants moved to dismiss counts ten 

through fifteen. (ECF No. 16).1 Defendant Shelland joined the motion on 

January 23, 2017. (ECF No. 21). On February 28, 2017 this Court issued a 

Report and Recommendation regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF 

No. 30). This Court recommended denying the Motion as to Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment retaliation claims and granting the Motion as to Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment and state law claims. District Judge Bashant adopted 

the Report and Recommendation on April 6, 2017. (ECF No. 37). 

Defendant Corcoran was not a movant in the original Motion to 

Dismiss. He was served by mail at a date later than the aforementioned 

parties, and waived service on February 6, 2017. (ECF No. 28). Defendant 

Corcoran now moves to dismiss only the Plaintiff’s claims that the previous 

Movants were successful in dismissing, for cruel and unusual punishment 

under the Eighth Amendment and all claims arising under state law. (ECF 

No. 31-1 at 2). 

 

1 Defendants, Olsen, Fernandez, Asbury, Stratton, Charlton, Vasquez, Moore, Self, 

Baenziger, Olivarria, Seibel and Sosa. Specifically, the Motion addressed all First 

Amendment retaliation claims against movants in supervisory positions, Eighth 

Amendment violations against all movants, and state law claims against all movants. 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 13
 3 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

Defendant Corcoran contends that (1) Plaintiff’s twelfth count fails to 

state a claim under the Eighth Amendment because he does not allege the 

loss of a fundamental right, (2) counts thirteen through fifteen should be 

dismissed because Defendant is immune from liability under state law, or in 

the alternative (3) counts thirteen through fifteen should be dismissed 

because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against 

Defendant Corcoran in the manner required by the California Government 

Claims Act. (ECF No. 31). Defendant also requests the Court take judicial 

notice of Plaintiff’s government claims filed with the Victims Compensation 

and Government Claims Board (“VCGCB”). (ECF No. 31-2). 

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Under Civil Local Rules, failure to 

object to a Motion may be construed as consent to the granting of the motion. 

Civ. L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). Nevertheless, the Court will consider the motion on its 

merits. 

II. BACKGROUND FACTS 

 These facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint, are not to be construed 

as findings of fact by the Court, and are limited to the claims relating to the 

movant, Defendant Corcoran. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Corcoran is a 

“employed as a correctional officer on ‘A’ facility at [Richard J. Donovan 

Correction Facility], and is responsible for the custody treatment and 

discipline of all inmates under his charge.” (ECF No. 1 at 11). 

Plaintiff’s claims arise from a series of appeals that Plaintiff filed and 

Rules Violation Reports (“RVR”) filed against him while incarcerated at 

Richard J. Donovan Correction Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California. 

(See ECF No. 1). From July of 2014 to May of 2015, Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants filed false RVRs against him, alleging that Plaintiff refused to 

report to work. (Id. at 18-20, 68, 76, 77, 100-01, 106-08, 125, 128). The RVRs 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 13
 4 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

state that the correctional officer in control of opening Plaintiff’s cell door 

reported that they opened Plaintiff’s cell door, but that Plaintiff refused to 

come out. (Id.). In response to the RVRs, Plaintiff filed appeals against the 

Defendants who authored the reports. (Id. at 18-20, 64-65, 73, 90-97, 96-97, 

101-104,115-17, 186-87). In the appeals, Plaintiff claims that counter to the 

information in the RVR, either his cell door was never opened or that he 

reported to work on the date listed in the RVR. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that 

these appeals were improperly rejected, cancelled or denied. (Id. at 19, 22, 

66, 72-76, 82-83, 86-87, 88, 92-93, 95, 98-99, 114-22, 188). 

From June of 2015 to April of 2016, Plaintiff filed inmate appeals 

alleging that Defendants were retaliating against Plaintiff’s previous inmate 

appeals by improperly handling them or otherwise impeding his access to file 

prisoner grievances. (Id. at 135-36, 144-45, 171-72, 183-84). Plaintiff alleges 

that these appeals were also improperly rejected, cancelled or denied. (Id. at 

133, 138-41, 143, 148-53, 170, 173-77, 179-82). 

Specific to the movant, Plaintiff alleges on March 6, 2015, Defendant 

Corcoran issued a RVR stating Plaintiff had failed to report to work and 

referenced prior documentation of Plaintiff’s refusal to work. (Id. at 25-26). 

In the RVR, Defendant Corcoran detailed that Plaintiff’s cell door was opened 

but he refused to come out. (Id.). Defendant Corcoran recommended Plaintiff 

appear before the appropriate classification committee for his immediate 

removal from his job assignment. (Id.). On March 11, 2015, the RVR was 

adjudicated by Senior Hearing Officer, Lieutenant A. Allamby, Plaintiff was 

found not guilty of the allegations made by Defendant Corcoran, and the RVR 

was dismissed. (Id.). 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 13
 5 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

Plaintiff’s Complaint describes his claims in fifteen counts as follows: 

In counts one through eleven, Plaintiff contends that Defendants 

Limon, Charlton, Shelland, Corcoran, Fernandez, Vasquez, Brown, Asbury, 

Moore, Olsen, Olivarria, Baenziger, Self, Sosa, Seibel and Stratton violated 

his First Amendment right to freedom of speech by retaliating against him 

for filing inmate appeals. (Id. at 31-51). 

In count twelve, Plaintiff contends that all Defendants imposed cruel 

and unusual conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

by prohibiting Plaintiff from attending his work assignment, filing false 

RVRs against him and interfering with Plaintiff’s right to file inmate appeals. 

(Id. at 52-53). 

In count thirteen, Plaintiff contends that all Defendants violated 

California Government Code § 19572(f). (Id. at 53-54). 

In count fourteen, Plaintiff contends that all Defendants violated 

California Penal Code § 5058. (Id. at 54-55). 

In count fifteen, Plaintiff contends that all Defendants violated several 

sections of the California Department of Corrections Operation Manual 

(“DOM”). (Id. at 55-56). 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

 “A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro 

v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (internal quotations omitted). The pleader must 

provide the Court with “more than an un-adorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Id. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 13
 6 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

action, supported by mere conclusory statements will not suffice.” Id. 

“Although for the purposes of a motion to dismiss [a court] must take all of 

the factual allegations in the complaint as true, [a court is] not bound to 

accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Id.

(internal quotations omitted). 

 A pro se pleading is construed liberally on a defendant’s motion to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ortez v. Washington Cnty., 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 

1996)). The pro se pleader must still set out facts in his complaint that bring 

his claims “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 570. A court “may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not 

initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. Of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint 

and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies cannot be 

cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 

1987). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

 First, the Court will consider whether Defendant’s request for judicial 

notice in support of his motion to dismiss will be granted. Next, the Court 

will determine whether Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted and 

counts twelve through fifteen of Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed as 

to Defendant Corcoran. 

A. Judicial Notice 

 Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of records from the 

VCGCB pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. (ECF No. 31-2 at 1-2). In 

support, Defendant attaches a declaration of Darlene Macias, the Custodian 

of Records for the Government Claims Program. (Id. at 3). 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 13
 7 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

 In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court may take judicial notice of “matters of 

public record” pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Mack v. South Bay 

Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, this 

Court takes judicial notice of the documents attached to Darlene Macias’ 

declaration as they are matters of public record. (ECF No. 31-2 at 3-73). 

B. Count Twelve: Eighth Amendment Violation 

Plaintiff contends the collective behavior of all Defendants violated his 

Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 

Specifically, he alleges Defendant violated this right by preventing Plaintiff 

from attending his work assignment, filing false RVRs pertaining to 

Plaintiff’s alleged failure to show up for his work assignment, and obstructing 

Plaintiff’s administrative rights to appeal the false RVRs. (ECF Nos. 1 at 52-

53; 23 at 10). Plaintiff asserts Defendants’ actions considered “in-concert” 

constitute a “cycle of harassment and psychological torture which lacked any 

penological justification” which sufficiently “deprived him of the ‘minimal 

civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” (ECF No. 23 at 9-11). Further, 

Plaintiff claims Defendants acted with deliberate indifference because they 

“had full knowledge” of Plaintiff’s allegations and “took no measure to 

investigate why the officers continued writing these false [RVRs] nor did they 

order the activities stopped.” (ECF No. 23 at 10). He states that Defendants 

were “objectively cruel” at the “expense of Plaintiff’s personal safety.” (Id. at 

12). 

 Defendant argues that count twelve must be dismissed because “writing 

an allegedly false disciplinary citation does not impact a fundamental right,” 

and Plaintiff “does not allege that [Defendant] Corcoran denied him the 

‘minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” (ECF 31-1 at 5-6). 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 13
 8 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

In response to a Motion to Dismiss filed by twelve Defendants on 

December 19, 2016, this Court found “there is no constitutional protection for 

prisoners where false disciplinary charges are filed and prosecuted.” (ECF 30 

at 19). On March 16, 2017 Judge Bashant approved and adopted the R&R in 

its entirety. (ECF 37). As explained below, the Court recommends this claim 

be dismissed against Defendant Corcoran for the same reasons. 

 The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners against cruel and unusual 

conditions of confinement. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Prison conditions do not 

violate the Eighth Amendment unless they amount to “unquestioned and 

serious deprivations of basic human needs” or the “minimal civilized 

measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981); 

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-300 (1991). “After incarceration, only the 

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual 

punishment. . . .” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (internal 

citations and quotations omitted). 

 To prove an Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of humane 

conditions of confinement, a prisoner must satisfy both an objective and 

subjective requirement. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Allen 

v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 1994). The objective prong requires the 

prisoner to allege facts sufficient to show that the prison official’s acts or 

omissions deprived him of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s 

necessities.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347. The institution provides the minimal 

civilized measure of life’s necessities if it “furnishes sentenced prisoners with 

adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal 

safety.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982) (internal 

citations and quotations omitted); see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. To meet 

the subjective prong, a prisoner must allege facts showing that the 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 13
 9 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

defendants acted with “deliberate indifference.” Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302; 

Allen, 48 F.3d at 1087. Deliberate indifference exists where a prison official 

“knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety; the 

official must be both aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn 

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the 

inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. 

Courts may consider conditions cumulatively “when they have mutually 

enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single identifiable human 

need . . . .” Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304-05. However, “[c]ourts may not find 

Eighth Amendment violations based on the ‘totality of conditions’ at a prison. 

. . . A number of conditions, each of which satisfy Eighth Amendment 

requirements, cannot in combination amount to an Eighth Amendment 

violation.” Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1246-47 (quoting Wright v. Rushen, 642 

F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

 Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to establish the objective 

requirement of an Eighth Amendment violation because he has not alleged 

he was deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities by 

Defendant Corcoran. Plaintiff’s allegations specific to Defendant Corcoran 

are only that Defendant Corcoran knowingly filed false RVR’s against the 

Plaintiff. Knowingly filing false RVR’s is not enough to sustain an Eighth 

Amendment claim. 

 Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss Count twelve of the Complaint be GRANTED and count twelve as to 

Defendant Corcoran be DISMISSED with prejudice.2

 

2 The Court declined to recommend granting Plaintiff leave to amend count 

twelve of the Complaint because the allegations are more properly considered 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 13
 10 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

C. Counts Thirteen, Fourteen and Fifteen 

 In count thirteen of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants 

violated California Government Code § 19572(f), which states that dishonesty 

is cause for discipline of a state government employee. (ECF No. 1 at 53-54); 

Cal. Gov. Code § 19572(f). In count fourteen, Plaintiff alleges that all 

Defendants violated California Penal Code § 5058 by failing to enforce, 

monitor and abide by the terms of the California Code of Regulations. (ECF 

No. 1 at 54-55). California Penal Code § 5058 permits the director of 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to 

“prescribe and amend rules and regulations for the administration of the 

prisons.” Cal. Pen. Code § 5058(a). In count fifteen, Plaintiff alleges that all 

Defendants violated the DOM. (Id. at 55-56). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts 

that his claims are based “upon the combination of: (a) preventing Plaintiff 

from attending his [work] assignment; (b) the succeeding action of failing to 

process his appeals regarding the false disciplinary reports that accused 

Plaintiff of refusing to attend his [work] assignment; and (c) failing to process 

 

under a First Amendment violation and counts one through eleven, which 

each allege retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, survive the 

Motion to Dismiss. See Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 269 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(finding cognizable First Amendment/retaliation claim based on theory that 

guard filed false disciplinary charge in retaliation for prisoner’s use of prison 

grievance system); see also Deadmon v. Grannis, No. 06cv1382-LAB (WMC), 

2008 WL 595883, *10 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2008) (observing that “an inmate can 

state a cognizable claim for violation of his federal constitutional rights 

associated with an allegedly false disciplinary report” through two means: 

first, by alleging the false report was retaliatory; and, second, by alleging he 

was not afforded procedural due process in connection with the issuance of 

that report). 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 13
 11 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

appeals filed against those whose responsibility it was to process appeals.” 

(ECF No. 23 at 17-18). 

Defendant argues that he is “immune from any claims under state law 

that involve instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administration 

proceeding.” (ECF No. 31-1 at 7). Defendant states that even if Plaintiff 

“could plead state law claims, he failed to file a government claim against 

Defendant Corcoran,” thereby barring his claims under the Government 

Claims Act. (Id. at 9). In light of the Court’s decision on the applicability of 

California Government Code § 821.6 immunity below, and consistent with 

the analysis of this Court on the previous Motion to Dismiss in the same 

matter, the Court declines to address the Defendant’s Government Claims 

Act argument. 

Government Code § 821.6 reads: “A public employee is not liable for 

injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative 

proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously 

and without probable cause.” Cal. Gov. Code § 821.6. “California courts 

construe section 821.6 broadly in furtherance of its purpose to protect public 

employees in the performance of their prosecutorial duties from the threat of 

harassment through civil suits.” Gillan v. City of San Marino, 147 Cal. App. 

4th 1033, 1048 (2d Dist., Div. 3 2007) (citing Ingram v. Flippo, 74 Cal. App. 

4th 1280, 1293 (6th Dist. 1999)). The statute is designed to provide immunity 

where a public employee “initiates or procures an arrest and prosecution 

under lawful process but with malicious motive and without probable cause.” 

Id. at 1043 (emphasis in original). The statute immunizes both the formal 

acts of filing or prosecuting a judicial or administrative action and actions 

taken in preparation of such formal proceeding. Id. at 1048. 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 13
 12 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Corcoran violated California 

Government Code § 19572(f), California Penal Code § 5058 and various 

sections within the DOM when he filed false RVRs against him. (ECF Nos. 1 

at 53-56; 23 at 17-18). Thus, counts thirteen, fourteen and fifteen raise only 

state law claims in connection with administrative disciplinary proceedings 

and Defendants are entitled to immunity under California Government Code 

§ 821.6. See Baker v. Schwarzenneger, 2008 WL 5068937, at *9 (S.D. Cal. 

Nov. 26, 2008); see also Miller v. Catlett, 2010 WL 444734, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 

Feb. 1, 2010). Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss counts thirteen, fourteen and fifteen of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint be GRANTED and the claims be DISMISSED as to Defendant 

Corcoran with prejudice. 

V. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that: 

 1) Defendant’s Motion be GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE as to 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against all Defendants (count twelve). 

 2) Defendant’s Motion be GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE as to 

Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Corcoran (counts thirteen, 

fourteen and fifteen). 

 This Report and Recommendation will be submitted to the United 

States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections with the court and 

serve a copy on all parties by June 13, 2017. The document shall be 

captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the 

objections shall be served and filed by June 20, 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 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 13
 13 

16cv1633-BAS-MDD 

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

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 23, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 45 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 13