Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00354/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00354-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Avila
Defendant
Sean Dias
Plaintiff
Dominick Garay
Defendant

Document Text:

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

SEAN DIAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM AVILA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00354-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Docs. 4, 8, 11

Plaintiff Sean Dias, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action in the Superior Court

Tulare County on March 7, 2024. Doc. 1 at 6–14. On March 26, 2024, defendants William 

Avila and Dominick Garay removed the action to this Court. Id. at 1–4. On March 27, 2024, 

defendants filed a motion to dismiss, Doc. 4, and the motion was directly assigned to the 

magistrate judge pursuant to L.R. App. A(m), Doc. 8 at 1. However, because plaintiff had not 

appeared or filed consent or declination of consent forms as required by L.R. App. A(m)(1), the 

magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations which were referred to the undersigned. 

The findings and recommendations recommend defendants’ motion to dismiss be 

granted and plaintiff be granted leave to file an amended complaint. Doc. 8. The findings and 

recommendations contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations 

were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service. The period for filing 

Case 1:24-cv-00354-KES-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/06/25 Page 1 of 3
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

objections has passed and no objections have been filed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes the findings 

and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended 

complaint, if any, within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. Plaintiff is 

warned that failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in the dismissal of this 

action with prejudice.

Additionally, defendants filed another motion to dismiss on November 20, 2024, arguing 

that this action should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute because defendant 

did not file an amended complaint after the magistrate judge issued the findings and 

recommendations. Doc. 11 at 1. However, following the issuance of findings and 

recommendations that recommend dismissal with leave to amend, a plaintiff has no obligation 

to file an amended complaint unless and until a district judge issues an order adopting those 

findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, defendants’ second 

motion to dismiss, Doc. 11, is DENIED.

Plaintiff is advised that his amended complaint must state what each named defendant 

did that led to the deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678–79 (2009). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] 

to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . ..” Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). Finally, plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the 

original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:24-cv-00354-KES-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/06/25 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued May 7, 2024, Doc. 8, are ADOPTED 

in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. 4, filed March 27, 2024, is GRANTED; 

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. 11, filed November 20, 2024, is DENIED;

4. The Clerk’s Office is directed to send Plaintiff a complaint form;

5. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of 

service of this order; and

6. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2025 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00354-KES-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/06/25 Page 3 of 3