Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02284/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02284-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEN W. ALLUSTIARTE, et al., No. CIV.S-05-2284 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local

Rule 72-302(c)(21). By findings and recommendations filed March 9,

2006, which were amended by order filed March 15, 2006, the

undersigned recommended that plaintiffs’ pro se complaint be

dismissed with leave to amend. Specifically, the undersigned

recommended that a motion to dismiss brought by defendant W. Austin

Cooper be granted as to all defendants, with plaintiffs being granted

leave to file an amended complaint as to defendants W. Austin Cooper,

Dennis M. Hauser, Edward Briseno, Melvyn J. CoBen and Martin B.

Briffman only. The time for filing objections to those findings and

Case 2:05-cv-02284-DFL-DAD Document 39 Filed 05/03/06 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

 According to Ms. CoBen’s motion, Mr. Coben’s first name was 1

“Melvyn,” not “Melvin” as alleged in the complaint.

2

recommendations has expired, and no objections have been filed. 

Those findings and recommendations are now pending before the

assigned district judge.

After the issuance of those findings and recommendations,

defendant Hauser and Nancy CoBen, the widow of named defendant Melvyn

J. CoBen, filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, noticing 1

their motions for hearing on May 5, 2006. No opposition to those

motions has been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

In light of the circumstances, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing in this matter scheduled for May 5, 2006,

at 10:00 a.m. is vacated;

2. In the event the assigned district judge adopts the

pending findings and recommendations, the court will issue such

further orders as are appropriate, if any; and

3. In the event the assigned district judge does not adopt

the pending findings and recommendations as to Hauser and CoBen,

their motions to dismiss will be taken under submission upon the

record and briefs on file without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-

230(h). 

DATED: May 3, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1/orders.prose/allustiarte2284.order.hearing

Case 2:05-cv-02284-DFL-DAD Document 39 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2