Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01627/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01627-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

15cv1627-CAB-AGS

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

GREGORY D. FOLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

COREY KALDENBACH, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15cv1627-CAB-AGS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 79] 

AND PROVIDING PLAINTIFF 

WITH SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS 

REGARDING FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff Gregory D. Foley filed a first amended complaint. 

[Doc. No. 28.] On August 31, 2016, Defendant City of Oceanside filed a motion to 

dismiss. [Doc. No. 46.] On November 16, 2016 Defendant Ronald Nevares filed a 

motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 60.] On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

amend the complaint. [Doc. No. 62.] Finally, on November 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 

motion for default judgment. [Doc. No. 66.]

On January 30, 2017, Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler prepared a Report and 

Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to amend be granted, 

Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be denied, Defendant City of Oceanside’s motion 

to dismiss be denied as moot, and Defendant Nevares’ motion to dismiss be denied as 

Case 3:15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS Document 86 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

15cv1627-CAB-AGS

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

moot. [Doc. No. 79.] The Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed within 

the time limits set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. [Report at 3.] To date, 

while Plaintiff has filed several other documents, no objection has been filed, nor have 

there been any requests for an extension of time in which to file an objection. 

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 

Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 

filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may 

“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 

the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge 

must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 

made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir.2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute 

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 

parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. In the absence of timely objection, the Court 

“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 

accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 

Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed it, 

the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s Report and 

Recommendation [Doc. No. 79]; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend [Doc. No. 

62]; (3) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment [Doc. No. 66]; (4) DENIES AS 

MOOT Defendant City of Oceanside’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 46]; and (5) 

DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Nevares’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 60].

/ / / / / 

Case 3:15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS Document 86 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

15cv1627-CAB-AGS

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

INSTRUCTIONS TO PLAINTIFF AS TO HOW TO PROCEED

A. Background

On July 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed the original complaint which named the following 

defendants: City of Oceanside, Oceanside Police Department, and Does 1-12. The 

complaint was filed on a form provided for state prisoners suing under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

The original complaint also contained factual allegations. [See Doc. No. 1.] On 

November 20, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend to substitute a named 

defendant for a Doe defendant. [Doc. No. 18.] Plaintiff was instructed that, if he wanted 

to add the named defendants, he needed to file an Amended Complaint by December 21, 

2015, that named all the defendants and contained sufficient “factual matter” to show: (1)

how and why he believes his constitutional rights were violated; and (2) what each

individual Defendant did to cause him injury. [Doc. No. 18 at 6-7.] 

December 21, 2015, came and went, but Plaintiff did not file an Amended 

Complaint. On February 9, 2016, however, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the 

issuance of a summons and U.S. Marshal Service. [Doc. No. 23.] Therefore, the Court 

assumed Plaintiff wanted to stand on his original complaint and conducted its mandatory 

screening of that pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915e(2) and 1915A before

determining whether U.S. Marshal service was warranted. The Court determined that 

Defendant Oceanside Police Department is not subject to suit under Section 1983 and 

therefore dismissed that defendant from the action. [Doc. No. 25.] The Court then 

ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve the complaint on the City of Oceanside, which was the 

only defendant in the action at that time. Thus, at this point, the original complaint was 

still the operative complaint, but with only one defendant.

On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint [Doc. No. 29] 

as well as what appeared to be a proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. No. 

28]. On September 14, 2016, Magistrate Judge Ruben Brooks granted the motion to 

amend and deemed the FAC to be the operative pleading. [Doc. No. 49 at 1.] Upon 

further review, however, it is apparent that the FAC is NOT a viable complaint. First, the 

Case 3:15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS Document 86 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

15cv1627-CAB-AGS

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

FAC appears to name the individual defendants, but it omits the City of Oceanside as a 

defendant.1 In addition, the FAC does not contain ANY factual allegations. Instead, it 

merely attaches a proposed summons for each individual defendant. It also has no 

identifiable claims and no prayer for relief. The FAC is simply not a viable complaint 

and is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Plaintiff is ADVISED that, at this point in time, there is NO operative complaint in 

this action. However, Plaintiff will be given one FINAL opportunity to file a Second 

Amended Complaint as set forth below.

B. Recent Filings by Plaintiff

After Judge Schopler issued the Report, Plaintiff filed several additional 

documents. [Doc. Nos. 81, 83 and 85.] One of the documents is 79 pages long, appears 

to be a motion requesting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, and even 

references a “Second amended complaint for defendants . . . .as per ordered by the court 

in, Report and Recommendation.” [Doc. No. 83 at 1.] However, in 79 pages, there is 

nothing that resembles a Second Amended Complaint. Rather, it appears to be a 

narrative of past events as well as a discussion of the current litigation; it also provides 

occasional legal citations, and attaches some police reports from the underlying event. 

However, it does not contain the necessary components of a complaint. Therefore, the 

documents that have been submitted to date by Plaintiff do NOT constitute a viable 

Second Amended Complaint.

The last filing by Plaintiff appears to be a motion regarding service of summons on 

the individual defendants. [Doc. No. 85.] Plaintiff is ADVISED that the Court will not 

address any issues regarding the issuance of summons or service on defendants unless 

and until Plaintiff files a viable Second Amended Complaint as set forth below.

/ / / / / 

 

1 Unless Plaintiff intended to dismiss the City of Oceanside, by not naming the City of Oceanside in the 

FAC, Plaintiff may waive his claims against the City.

Case 3:15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS Document 86 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

15cv1627-CAB-AGS

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

C. Instructions on How to Prepare a Second Amended Complaint 

Plaintiff is hereby granted one FINAL opportunity to file a Second Amended 

Complaint. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order 

in which to file his Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s pleading must be identified 

as his Second Amended Complaint, include Civil Case No. 15cv1627 CAB (AGS) in its 

caption, name the all parties he wishes to sue, and allege all the claims he wishes to 

pursue in one single, clear, and concise pleading. Plaintiff is reminded that he need not 

cite case law or make any legal arguments or attach any evidence. Instead, he should 

avoid exaggeration, and use short, plain, declarative sentences to describe, in his own 

words, what each individual person he names as a defendant did to violate his rights, 

when, where, and how they did it, and what relief he seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); 

Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (noting that “[b]ecause vicarious liability is 

inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Governmentofficial defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the 

Constitution.”). 

In order to assist Plaintiff in the preparation of the Second Amended Complaint, 

and to encourage his timely compliance, the Court also DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to 

provide Plaintiff with another copy of its form Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, and strongly suggests that he use it. Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint must also comply with S.D. Cal. CivLR 8.2(a); therefore, he may attach no 

more than fifteen (15) additional pages.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons discussed, the Court:

(1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 

79]; 

(2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend [Doc. No. 62]; 

(3) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment [Doc. No. 66]; 

Case 3:15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS Document 86 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

15cv1627-CAB-AGS

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

(4) DENIES AS MOOT Defendant City of Oceanside’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 

No. 46]; 

(5) DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Nevares’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 60];

(6) DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the FAC [Doc. No. 28];

(7) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order in which to 

file his Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s pleading must be identified as his Second 

Amended Complaint, include Civil Case No. 15cv1627 (CAB)(AGS) in its caption, name 

the all parties he wishes to sue, and allege all the claims he wishes to pursue in one 

single, clear, and concise pleading. In order to assist him, and to encourage his timely 

compliance, the Court also DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with 

another copy of its form Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 

strongly suggests that he use it. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint must also comply 

with S.D. Cal. CivLR 8.2(a); therefore, he may attach no more than fifteen (15) 

additional pages; and,

(8) CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, should he fail to comply with the directions set 

forth in this Order by filing a Second Amended Complaint within the 45 days provided, 

the Court will dismiss his entire civil action without prejudice based on his failure to 

prosecute and/or comply with the Court’s Orders permitting amendment. See Lira, 427 

F.3d at 1169 (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his 

complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of 

the entire action.”); Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The 

failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by 

/ / / / /

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / /

/ / / / / 

Case 3:15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS Document 86 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

15cv1627-CAB-AGS

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

amending the complaint or by indication to the court that it will not do so—is properly 

met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01627-CAB-AGS Document 86 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7