Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT. 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF Nos. 85, 92, 105, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115)

Plaintiff Richard Charles Hanna is appearing 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 June 5 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations

recommending granting in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata

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 July 2, 2014, Plaintiff 

filed an Objection. On July 3, 2014, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objection.

Plaintiff’s objections are not persuasive. In the main, Plaintiff’s objections are a 

reiteration of his attempts to set aside the judgment in related case 1:12cv1885 AWI SAB. 

However, the issue of whether the judgment should be set aside has been decided, and the 

judgment in 1:12cv1885 AWI SAB will not be set aside. Plaintiff presented evidence at a hearing 

and objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. The Court considered the 

findings and recommendation, the evidence, and Plaintiff’s objections and it ruled against 

Plaintiff. The Court will not entertain further motions or argument on the topic. 

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 117 Filed 07/22/14 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

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 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 5, 2014, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Motion to Dismiss filed December 31, 2013 is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata is GRANTED as to 

Defendant Mariposa County Sheriff Department, and DENIED as to Defendants 

Boehm, Rumfelt, Rameriz, and King;

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper service on the individual Defendants 

is GRANTED, and the United States Marshal shall be ordered to re-serve the 

summons and complaint; 

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim against Defendant 

Mariposa County Sheriff Department is GRANTED; 

d. Defendants’ motion to dismiss on all other grounds is DENIED; and

3. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge to initiate service of process on 

Defendants Boehm, Rumfelt, Rameriz, and King.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 117 Filed 07/22/14 Page 2 of 2