(PC) Rilurcasa v. State of California ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOM JON RILURCASA, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01568 JLT SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ) 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ) ) (Docs. 38, 49) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Tom Ron Rilurcasa is a deaf individual who asserts that he was denied access to an interpreter, 18 which would allow for adequate participation in his medical appointments and treatment. Plaintiff 19 seeks to hold Stu Sherman, former Warden at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State 20 Prison, Corcoran (SATF), liable in his official capacity, for violating Plaintiff’s rights under the 21 Americans with Disabilities Act. (See Doc. 30 at 11.) Defendant moved to dismiss the Second 22 Amended Complaint, asserting Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to 23 state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 38.) 24 The assigned magistrate judge found it was not clear from the face of the pleadings that 25 Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 49 at 3-4.) In addition, the magistrate 26 judge found Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. (Id. at 5-8.) 27 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motion to dismiss be denied. (Id. at 8.) The Court 28 served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that any objections were 1 || due within 21 days. Ud.) The Court also advised them that the “failure to file objections within the 2 || specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. at 8-9, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 3 || 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) 4 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 5 || Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the lodged third amended complaint, the Court 6 || finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, 7 || the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 2, 2023 (Doc. 49), are ADOPTED 9 IN FULL. 10 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 38) is DENIED. 11 3. Defendant SHALL file an answer to the complaint within 14 days from the date of 12 service of this order. 13 14 IS SO ORDERED. 15 || ated: _ June 19, 2023 ( LAW pA L. wan 16 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28