Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00830/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00830-20/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRADY HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0830 TLN DB 

ORDER

Plaintiff Grady Harris (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil 

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On May 10, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 106.) Plaintiff 

and Defendants Calderon, Cervantes, Fong, Fuller, Munoz, Rose, Thompson, and Williamson

(collectively, “Defendants”) have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF 

Nos. 107, 110.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 112 Filed 07/08/21 Page 1 of 2
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

also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). Having reviewed the file under the 

applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by 

the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 

Defendants’ sole objection to the Findings and Recommendations is that the magistrate 

judge improperly found Plaintiff stated a claim against newly-added Defendant Velasquez,1 who 

is not named in either the original Complaint or First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 

107 (citing ECF Nos. 1, 10).) Defendants argue the Court should decline to find a claim asserted 

against this new Defendant because Plaintiff failed to seek and obtain leave to add Velasquez as a 

Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a)(2). (Id.) While 

Defendants’ argument is meritorious, their objection pertains to portions of the magistrate judge’s 

Screening Order that are not presently before the Court as findings and recommendations. Thus, 

Defendants may not seek dismissal of Velasquez by way of objecting to the Screening Order, but 

must instead file a properly noticed motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for judgment 

on the pleadings. On this basis, Defendants objections are overruled. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 10, 2021 (ECF No. 106) are

ADOPTED IN FULL; and 

2. Plaintiff’s due process claim is DISMISSED without leave to amend.

Defendants are directed to respond to the Second Amendment Complaint as set forth in 

the Findings and Recommendations. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: July 7, 2021

1 The Second Amended Complaint and majority of Defendants’ objections refer to the new 

Defendant as “Valasquez” (see generally ECF Nos 96, 107), but the Findings and 

Recommendations refer to this party as “Velasquez,” as does the Court herein. 

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 112 Filed 07/08/21 Page 2 of 2