Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00620/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00620-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN MORGAN,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 0620 LJO WMW P 

vs. FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION

RE MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC 14)

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil action against the California Department of

Corrections. Pending before the court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

This action was initiated by civil complaint, setting forth claims

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

U.S.C. § 12132, et seq. The court directed service of process of the

complaint upon Defendant California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (CDCR). 

Defendant CDCR filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Subsequently, Plaintiff lodged with the court a proposed

amended complaint. Defendant has not filed any opposition to Plaintiff’s

request. Further, Defendant has responded to the complaint by the filing

Case 1:05-cv-00620-LJO -WMW Document 24 Filed 09/27/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

of a motion to dismiss. Defendant has not filed an answer to the

complaint. Motions under Rule 12 are not responsive pleadings within the

meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Plaintiff is therefore

entitled to file an amended complaint. Concurrent with this

recommendation, an order will be entered, granting Plaintiff leave to file

his first amended complaint and directing the Clerk to file the first

amended complaint lodged with the court on March 19, 2007.

Further, Defendant’s motion addressed Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first amended complaint proceeds against Defendant

on Plaintiff’s ADA claim. There are no claims in the first amended

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied.

2. Defendant be directed to file a response to the first amended

complaint lodged with the court on March 19, 2007.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United

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

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after being served with these

findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed

within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all

objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d

Case 1:05-cv-00620-LJO -WMW Document 24 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the specified time th

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00620-LJO -WMW Document 24 Filed 09/27/07 Page 3 of 3