Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00014/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00014-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Lindsay
Defendant
Timothy S. Daubert
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY S. DAUBERT, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF LINDSAY, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:10-cv-00014 AWI GSA

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS CASE WITHOUT LEAVE TO

AMEND

Plaintiff, Timothy S. Daubert, appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed

the instant complaint on January 5, 2010.

DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the

complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof

if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment.

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

1

Case 1:10-cv-00014-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 02/19/10 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

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff

must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its

face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations

are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not. Id. at 1949.

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint

In his complaint, Plaintiff, a disability advocate, alleges he purchased a ticket to go to the

Aqua Center in Lindsay, California which is owned and operated by the City of Lindsay. 

Plaintiff alleges that the Aqua Center was under construction and he was required to go through

the City Park in order to access the Aqua Center. Plaintiff contends that there are no sidewalks

inside the City Park and he had travel on the street which has potholes and is not accessible to the

handicapped. Plaintiff alleges violations of Title II and Title III of the Americans with

Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(a). He also alleges a violation of § 504

of the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U. S. C. § 794. 

C. Discussion 

As a preliminary matter, the court notes that Plaintiff already has an ongoing case against

the City of Lindsay in which he has set forth a cognizable claim that the City Park is not

accessible to the handicapped. Daubert v. City of Lindsay, 09-cv- 1270 AWI GSA. Specifically,

in the existing case, Plaintiff stated the same claim with regard to the condition of the roads

inside the City Park. Because the instant complaint contains the same violations as the existing

complaint, the instant complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend as it is duplicative.

///

///

2

Case 1:10-cv-00014-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 02/19/10 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

C. Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Anthony W.

Ishii pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the

Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 19, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00014-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 02/19/10 Page 3 of 3