Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02538/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02538-2/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

16cv2538-CAB-KSC

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

STEVEN GREGORY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. RESLER, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv2538-CAB-KSC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 53] 

and GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 23]

On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff Steven Gregory Williams, a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint for violation of his civil rights 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. No. 1.] On December 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. No. 4.] On May 30, 2017, Defendants filed a 

motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 23.] On December 18, 2017, 

Magistrate Judge Karen Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) to 

grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, with leave to amend only as to Plaintiff’s 

Americans with Disabilities (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation (“RA”) claims against 

defendant S. Resler. [Doc. No. 53.] On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to 

the Report. [Doc. No. 57.]

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 

Case 3:16-cv-02538-CAB-KSC Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv2538-CAB-KSC

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

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). 

The Report provides a summary of the factual allegations in the FAC [Doc. No. 53 

at 2-3], followed by a legal analysis of Plaintiff’s: (1) Fourteenth Amendment claims; (2) 

ADA and RA claims; and (3) official capacity claims under California state law [Doc. 

No. 53 at 5- 15]. The Report concludes that Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be 

granted with prejudice as to all claims as to all of the defendants, except that Plaintiff 

should be given leave to amend his ADA and RA claims as to defendant Resler only. 

[Doc. No. 53 at 15-16.]

In his objections to the Report, Plaintiff takes issue with the Report’s recitation of 

the factual allegations in the FAC. [Doc. No. 57.] While it is true that the factual 

recitations in the Report are not an exact duplicate of the allegations in the FAC, the 

Report merely seeks to provide a summary of the FAC’s allegations, not an actual 

duplication. This Court has compared the Report’s summary of the allegations with the 

actual allegations in the FAC, and finds the summaries to be accurate for purposes of the 

legal analysis required for this motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are rejected.

Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be thorough, complete, 

and an accurate analysis of the legal issues presented in the motion to dismiss. Therefore, 

the Court: (1) ADOPTS the Report in full; (2) REJECTS Plaintiff’s objections; (3) AND 

GRANTS the motion to dismiss as follows:

Case 3:16-cv-02538-CAB-KSC Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv2538-CAB-KSC

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)GRANTS as to all defendants WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s claims under 

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

(2)GRANTS as to defendant Resler WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s 

claims under the ADA and RA;

(3)GRANTS as to defendants Hernandez, Garza, and Servantes WITH 

PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s claims under the ADA and RA;

(4)GRANTS as to defendants Din, Juarez, Stratton and Liu WITH PREJUDICE as 

to Plaintiff’s claims under the ADA and RA;

(5)GRANTS as to all defendants WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s claims for 

punitive damages under the ADA and RA;

(6)GRANTS as to all defendants WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s claims 

against defendants in their official capacities under California Government 

Code § 11135.

Plaintiff has until May 4, 2018 to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). 

However, the SAC may only include claims under the ADA and RA against defendant 

Resler, and may not include claims for punitive damages. If no SAC is filed by May 4, 

2018, judgment shall be entered for Defendants and the case shall be closed without 

further court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02538-CAB-KSC Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3