Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02200/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02200-7/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD EDWARD JACKSON, III,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2200-WQH-NLS

ORDER

vs.

WILLIAM GORE, San Diego County

Sheriff; CAPTAIN PENA, San Diego

Central Jail Facility Commander; DR.

NORANYO, Director of Psychiatry,

SDCJ; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

Central Detention Facility, George Bailey

Detention Facility, and San Diego

Psychiatric Hospital,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 79)

recommending that the Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint filed by Defendants

County of San Diego, William Gore, Captain Pena and Dr. Noranyo (ECF Nos. 65, 73) be

granted, Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment (ECF No. 72) be denied, and the

Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 64) be dismissed with prejudice; and (2) the Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 78) recommending that Plaintiff’s Request for Permission to File

Electronically (ECF No. 70) be denied.

BACKGROUND

On October 26, 2010, Plaintiff, a former pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se and in

- 1 - 10cv2200-WQH-NLS

Case 3:10-cv-02200-WQH-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/12/13 Page 1 of 4
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

forma pauperis, initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. (ECF No. 1). On January 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No.

10). On May 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 12). On March

13, 2012, the Court entered an Order adopting the report and recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, granting the motions to dismiss the second amended complaint filed by all

Defendants, and dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiff’s claims regarding medical treatment

for his mental health issues at San Diego Central Detention Facility and dismissing without

prejudice Plaintiff’s claims regarding his placement in a “safety cell” at San Diego Central

Detention Facility. (ECF No. 62).

On April 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed the “Amended Complaint of Placement in Safety

Cell,” which the Court construes as the Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 64). The Third

Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s civil rights were violated when he was placed in

a “safety cell” at the San Diego Central Detention Facility on May 14, 2010 and June 2, 2010. 

Id. at 1.

On May 4, 2012, Defendants County of San Diego, William Gore, and Captain Pena

filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 65). On July 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Request for the Court to

“allow [Plaintiff] to electronic[ally] file all court documents in this civil case.” (ECF No. 70

at 1). On July 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default Judgment as to

Defendant Dr. Noranyo. (ECF No. 72). On October 3, 2012, Defendant Dr. Noranyo filed a

Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). (ECF No. 73).

On January 24, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Motions to Dismiss be granted, the Request for Entry of Default

Judgment be denied, and the Third Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF

No. 79). On January 24, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation

recommending that Plaintiff’s Request for Permission to File Electronically be denied. (ECF

No. 78). Each Report and Recommendation states that, no later than 30 days from issuance

- 2 - 10cv2200-WQH-NLS

Case 3:10-cv-02200-WQH-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/12/13 Page 2 of 4
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

of the Report and Recommendation, any party may file written objections to the Report and

Recommendation. Id. at 2; ECF No. 79 at 14.

The docket reflects that no objection to either Report and Recommendation has been

filed.1

REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 

The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to

which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not

review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which neither party objects. 

See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

After review of the Report and Recommendation recommending the dismissal of the

Third Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge set forth the correct

legal standards for evaluating motions to dismiss and civil rights claims related to the use of

“safety cells.” See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007); Bell

v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539 (1979); Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314 (9th

Cir. 1995); see also Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690

(1978) (municipal liability); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisor

liability). The Magistrate Judge correctly applied these standards to the allegations of the

Third Amended Complaint and correctly found that all remaining claims against all remaining

Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that

Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment and Request for Permission to File

Electronically should be denied.

1

 On February 15, 2013, Plaintiff attempted to file a “Request for discovery conference

for answer to Civil Rule 33.1 Interrogatories and Civil Rule 36.1 Request for Admission.” 

(ECF No. 80 at 2). This single-page document contains a list of interrogatories and requests

for admission, and does not reference any pending Report and Recommendation or motion.

- 3 - 10cv2200-WQH-NLS

Case 3:10-cv-02200-WQH-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/12/13 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that each pending Report and Recommendation is

ADOPTED in its entirety. (ECF Nos. 78, 79). The Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended

Complaint filed by Defendants County of San Diego, William Gore, Captain Pena and Dr.

Noranyo are GRANTED. (ECF Nos. 65, 73). Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default

Judgment and Request for Permission to File Electronically are DENIED. (ECF Nos. 70, 72). 

The Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court

shall close this case.

DATED: March 11, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 10cv2200-WQH-NLS

Case 3:10-cv-02200-WQH-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/12/13 Page 4 of 4