Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01325/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01325-7/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

WILLIAM CLIFTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEAN PEIRRE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-1325-DAD-DLB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

STATE LAW CLAIMS

(Doc. Nos. 25 and 33)

Plaintiff William Clifton is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his third amended 

complaint in this civil rights action. (Doc. Nos. 4 and 17.) In his complaint plaintiff alleges four 

causes of action: (1) violation of the Eighth Amendment brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

defendant Talley; (2) violation of the First Amendment also brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

against defendant Talley; (3) medical negligence against defendants Pierre and Talley; and (4) 

intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant Talley. (Doc. No. 17.)

On September 28, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims

on the grounds that plaintiff failed to comply with the administrative claim requirement of the 

California Government Claims Act. (Doc. No. 25.) The matter was referred to a United States 

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

Case 1:13-cv-01325-DAD-GSA Document 34 Filed 07/27/16 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

On March 21, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. No. 33.) Those findings and 

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 

must be filed within thirty days. (Id.) The parties have not filed objections and the time for doing 

so has long since passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 33), filed March 21, 2016, are adopted in 

full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 25) is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without leave to amend; and

4. Defendants shall file a response to the third amended complaint within twenty-one days of 

the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01325-DAD-GSA Document 34 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 2