Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00882/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00882-2/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

17cv882-CAB-BLM

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

DUWAYNE JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv882-CAB-BLM

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 31];

GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT 

PARAMO [Doc. No. 25]; DENYING 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON 

PROCEEDINGS [Doc. No. 35]; AND 

GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO AMEND COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 

37]

On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff Steven Duwayne Jackson, 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, against Defendants Paramo, Romero, Valdovinos, and Navarro alleging 

claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. [Doc. No. 1.] On June 14, 2017, 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. No. 11.] On September 25, 

2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC as to Defendant Warden Paramo. 

[Doc. No. 25.] On December 18, 2017, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a Report 

and Recommendation (“Report”) to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to 

amend as to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendant Paramo. 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 39 Filed 03/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cv882-CAB-BLM

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

[Doc. No. 31.] Objections to the Report were to be filed by February 23, 2018. [Doc. No. 

31 at 16.] 

On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Proceedings. 

[Doc. No. 35.] On February 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend 

Complaint. [Doc. No. 37.] Plaintiff did not, however, file any objections to the Report.

A. Report/Motion to dismiss.

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 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). 

While Plaintiff did not file any objections, 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: ADOPTS the Report in full and GRANTS

the motion to dismiss with leave to amend as to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment 

claims with respect to Defendant Paramo.

B. Motion for Judgment on Proceedings.1

In the Motion for Judgment on the Proceedings, Plaintiff argues that the motion to 

dismiss should be denied because Defendants did not file a reply to his opposition. 

However, while reply papers are authorized by Local Rule 7.1.e.3, they are not required. 

 

1 The Court understands this to be a motion for judgment on the pleadings, as Plaintiff cites to Rule 

12(c).

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 39 Filed 03/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cv882-CAB-BLM

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

Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument is rejected, and the Motion for Judgment on the 

Proceedings is DENIED.

C. Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.

In the Motion for leave to Amend Complaint, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a proposed 

(Second) Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Plaintiff has already been granted leave to amend 

as to the claims against Defendant Paramo. However, the SAC also seeks to add additional 

defendants. Given that the current defendants, except defendant Paramo, have not 

responded to the FAC, the most efficient course is to allow the filing of the SAC. 

Therefore, the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED.

2

 

Defendants Paramo, Romero, Valdovinos and Navarro shall respond to the SAC by 

April 27, 2018.

As to the newly-added Defendants -- L. Coronado, T. Geisinger, D. Clayton, and M. 

Deel – the Court:

1. DIRECTS the Clerk to issue an amended summons as to Plaintiff’s SAC 

[Doc. No. 37] to include Defendants Coronado, Geisinger, Clayton and Deel, and forward 

it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each of these Defendants. In 

addition, the Clerk will provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order, a certified copy 

of the SAC, and the amended summons so that he may serve them upon these Defendants. 

Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff must complete the Form 285s as completely 

and accurately as possible, include an address where each Defendant may be served, see

S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.1.c, and return them to the United States Marshal according to the 

instructions the Clerk provides in the letter accompanying his IFP package.

2. ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the SAC and amended 

summons upon Defendants Coronado, Geisinger, Clayton and Deel, as directed by Plaintiff 

 

2 The docket shall reflect that Doc. No. 37 is now the Second Amended Complaint.

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 39 Filed 03/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cv882-CAB-BLM

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

on the USM Form 285s provided to him. All costs of that service will be advanced by the 

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).

3. ORDERS Defendants Coronado, Geisinger, Clayton and Deel, once served,

to respond to Plaintiff’s SAC within the time provided by the applicable provisions of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). 

4. ORDERS Plaintiff, after service has been effected by the U.S. Marshal, to 

serve upon Defendants Coronado, Geisinger, Clayton and Deel, or, if appearance has been 

entered by counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading, motion, 

or other document submitted for the Court’s consideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

Plaintiff must include with every original document he seeks to file with the Clerk of the 

Court, a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of that document 

has been was served on Defendants or their counsel, and the date of that service. See S.D. 

Cal. CivLR 5.2. Any document received by the Court which has not been properly filed 

with the Clerk, or which fails to include a Certificate of Service upon the Defendants, may 

be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 39 Filed 03/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4