Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02745/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02745-5/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 – 15-cv-2745 DMS (WVG)

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

DAVID B. DURAN,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-2745 DMS (WVG)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND (2) GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM

[ECF NOS. 91, 104]

v.

OMAR MANDUJO, et al.,

Defendants.

On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff David B. Duran, a state prisoner proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

On June 2, 2017, Defendants Larry Lewis and Jonta Yancy filed a Motion to Dismiss 

for Failure to State a Claim. On August 31, 2017, Magistrate Judge William V. 

Gallo issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court 

grant the motion. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R. Defendants did not file a 

reply.

This Court, having reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and the 

objections thereto, adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and GRANTS

Case 3:15-cv-02745-DMS-WVG Document 106 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
– 2 – 15-cv-2745 DMS (WVG)

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

the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

1

 The Court finds no basis for a 

certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2017

 1 The Court notes the claim provision of Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2 is inoperative in an 

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the fact that Plaintiff did not allege 

compliance with that provision is irrelevant to his claim under the Civil Rights Act. 

See Williams v. Horvath, 16 Cal. 3d 834 (Cal. 1976); Toscano v. Cty. of L.A., 92 Cal. 

App. 3d 775, 784 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979). Here, Plaintiff expressly pleads only a claim 

under § 1983. To the extent the Magistrate Judge construes the FAC to include a 

claim for battery or assault, as he does in section IV(B)(v) Statute of Limitations, the 

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis in section IV(B)(iv) California 

Government Claims Act. 

Case 3:15-cv-02745-DMS-WVG Document 106 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2