Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252-5/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MOOTRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. G. FLORES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN

PARTANDDENYING IN PARTDEFENDANTS

MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 47)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

AMEND AS MOOT (ECF No. 35)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Michael Mootry (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On December 19, 2011, Plaintiff

filed an Objection. In his Objection Plaintiff raises new arguments and presents additional factual

allegations that were not included in the First Amended Complaint or the Opposition to the Motion

to Dismiss. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s arguments asserted

for the first time in the Objection to the Findings and Recommendations. Espinosa -Matthews v.

California, 432 F.3d 1021, 1026 n.4 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622

(9th Cir. 2000).

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

1

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 50 Filed 12/20/11 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

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

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 6, 2011, is adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed June 10, 2011, is granted in part and denied in

part as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons claims are

dismissed, without leave to amend, as moot;

b. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend for

failure to state a claim;

c. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss based upon qualified immunity is denied,

without prejudice;

3. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order Plaintiff shall file a Second

Amended Complaint; 

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, filed June 30, 2011, is denied as moot; and 

6. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 50 Filed 12/20/11 Page 2 of 2