Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00981/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00981-2/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 – 17-cv-981 DMS (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

FRANCO CARACCIOLI,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-981 DMS (WVG)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS

v.

JAMES BURNETT, et al.,

Defendants.

On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff Franco Caraccioli, proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed a Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging two causes of action for (1) violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and 

(2) violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. On October 

5, 2018, Defendant James Burnett filed a motion to dismiss. On November 7, 2018, 

Defendants Samuel Cote, Edwin Garrette, Justin Featherly, Jeffrey Swett, Jon 

Goebel, Jonathan Junker, Thomas McGrath, Rebecca Slade, John Horvath, and Joel 

Mendoza joined Burnett’s motion. Plaintiff filed oppositions to Defendants’ 

motions, and Defendants filed replies. 

On June 5, 2019, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court (1) grant Defendants’ 

motion as to Plaintiff’s first cause of action with prejudice, (2) deny Defendants’ 

Case 3:17-cv-00981-DMS-WVG Document 57 Filed 08/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
– 2 – 17-cv-981 DMS (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

motion as to Plaintiff’s second cause of action, (3) grant Defendant Burnett’s motion 

to dismiss for failure to state a claim without prejudice, and (4) deny Defendants 

Cote, Garrette, Featherly, Swett, Goebel, Junker, McGrath, Slade, Horvath, and 

Mendoza’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed an objection 

to the R&R, and Defendants filed a reply. 

This Court, having reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and the 

objections and reply thereto, adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation in its 

entirety. Plaintiff may file a Third Amended Complaint subject to the limitations set 

forth in the R&R,

1 on or before August 30, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2019

 

1

 See R&R at 10:15–19. 

Case 3:17-cv-00981-DMS-WVG Document 57 Filed 08/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2