Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01350/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01350-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE R. MOYER, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1350 FCD DAD P

vs.

JAMES E. TILTON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights

action seeking relief under 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 General Order No. 262.

On February 20, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Both parties

have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Both parties have filed replies.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01350-FCD-DAD Document 62 Filed 03/26/08 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

2

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 February 20, 2008 are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state Ex Post Facto claim for failure

to comply with the CTCA is granted and the claim is dismissed with prejudice to the extent

plaintiff seeks monetary damages;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state Takings Clause claim for failure

to comply with the CTCA is denied;

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s federal Takings Clause claim as

unripe is denied;

5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s federal and state Takings Clause

claims for failure to state a cognizable claim is denied;

6. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s federal Ex Post Facto Clause and

Takings Clause claims on grounds of qualified immunity is granted and those claims are

dismissed with prejudice to the extent plaintiff seeks monetary damages from defendants in their

individual capacity; and

7. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state Ex Post Facto Clause and

Takings Clause claims on grounds of statutory immunity is granted and those claims are

dismissed with prejudice to the extent plaintiff seeks monetary damages from defendants in their

individual capacity.

DATED: March 25, 2008.

Case 2:03-cv-01350-FCD-DAD Document 62 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 2