Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00573/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00573-6/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-573-JLS (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

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERIFF DEPUTY GONZALEZ; 

DEPUTY JOHN DOE; LISA GUIGUITE 

STARK, DDA; JOHN AND JANE 

DOES, DDA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-CV-573-JLS (WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

REINSTATE DISMISSED 

DEFENDANT

(ECF Nos. 88, 108)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Dismissed Defendant 

Lisa Stark, (“MTN,” ECF No. 88). Also before the Court is Lisa Stark’s Response in 

Opposition to the Motion, (ECF No. 92), and Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of the Motion, 

(ECF No. 97). Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo’s has issued a Report and 

Recommendation advising the Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion, (“R&R,” ECF No. 108).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Judge Gallo provides an accurate summary of the relevant procedural background 

to the present Motion:

On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. (ECF No. 

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 111 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15-CV-573-JLS (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

1.) On July 31, 2015, Stark filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant 

to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 11.) This Court filed a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending Stark be dismissed from the case. 

(ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff did not file an objection to this R&R. On March 18, 

2016, The Honorable Janis L. Sammartino adopted the R&R and dismissed 

Stark without prejudice. (ECF No. 32.) 

On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and again 

named Stark as a defendant. (ECF No. 42.) On August 2, 2016, Stark filed 

another Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 44.) On 

December 1, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Stark pursuant 

to Rule 41(a). (ECF No. 58.) On December 2, 2016, Judge Sammartino 

dismissed Stark without prejudice. (ECF No. 59.) 

On May 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, requesting the court 

reinstate Stark as a defendant.

(R&R 1–2.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court must “make 

a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 

recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United 

States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely 

objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 

record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s 

note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 

ANALYSIS

Judge Gallo analyzes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and finds no reason the

Court should relieve Plaintiff from the judgment dismissing Stark from this case. (See 

generally R&R.) Judge Gallo found Plaintiff’s Motion to be a “thinly veiled attempt to 

reopen discovery” and recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion with prejudice. (Id. 

at 4–5.)

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 111 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15-CV-573-JLS (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

No Party timely objected to Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R. (See R&R 5 (requiring 

objections to be filed by February 9, 2018).) The Court finds that the R&R is well reasoned 

and contains no clear error.

Accordingly, the Court hereby:

(1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R; and

(2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Dismissed Defendant Lisa Stark WITH 

PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2018

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 111 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3