A.B. v. County of Kern ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.B., No.: 1:20-cv-1337-NONE-JLT 12 Plaintiff, AMENDED1 ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM 14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., PRESENTATION REQUIREMENT 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 11, 22.) 16 17 Plaintiff A.B. asserts that her rights arising under federal and state law were violated by Kern 18 County Deputy Sherriff Michael Clark and the County of Kern. She contends she suffered gender 19 violence and sexual battery in violation of California law, as well as several civil rights violations. (See 20 generally Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff seeks relief from California’s government tort claim presentation 21 requirement pursuant to an exemption procedure set forth in California Government Code § 946.6 (“§ 22 946.6”). (Doc. No. 11.) The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 concluding that the district court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief requested under § 946.6, because 24 that authority is reserved to the California Superior Courts. (See Doc. No. 22 at 5-8.) Therefore, the 25 1 On December 14, 2020, the court entered an order adopting the findings and recommendations in 26 full that inadvertently also indicated (in the caption only) that the case should be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. No. 25.) This resulted in the erroneous entry of judgment. (Doc. No. 26.) As the 27 December 14, 2020 judgment was the result of a clerical error, it and the December 14, 2020 order adopting are VACATED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), and the clerk of court is 28 directed to reopen this case. 1 || magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff's motion be denied for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 2: 2 The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendations that the 3 |] action be dismissed. (Doc. No. 22 at 8.) In addition, the parties were “advised that failure to file 4 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id. 5 || (citing Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th 6 || Cir. 2014)).) To date, no objections have been filed by any party. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley Unitec 8 || School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this court conducted a de novo review of the case. 9 || Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations are supported b 10 || the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 12 1. The findings and recommendations dated November 9, 2020 (Doc. No. 22) are 13 ADOPTED IN FULL; and 14 2. Plaintiff's motion for relief from the Government Tort Claim Presentation Requiremer 15 (Doc. 11) is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ta 2 2 18 Dated: _ December 21, 2020 Sea Tl ar UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28