(PC) Mitchell v. Diaz ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN E. MITCHELL, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00006 JLT EPG (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND ) DISMISSING THE OFFICIAL CAPACITY CLAIM 14 T. RODRIGUEZ, ) AGAINST RODRIGUEZ ) 15 Defendant. ) (Docs. 38, 44) ) 16 ) 17 John Mitchell is a state prisoner who asserts that his civil rights were violated by correctional 18 officer Rodriguez, who Mitchell contends deprived him of a silver chain and medallion without a 19 legitimate penological purpose. (See Docs. 24, 29.) Rodriguez seeks dismissal of “Plaintiff’s claims 20 for damages against [Rodriguez] in his official capacity” as barred under the Eleventh Amendment. 21 (Doc. 48.) Mitchell indicated he “agree[d] to … dismiss the claim against the defendant as to the 22 Eleventh Amendment.” (Doc. 43 at 1.) 23 On February 7, 2023, the magistrate judge observed that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for 24 “damages or injunctive relief against a state, an arm of the state, its instrumentalities, or its agencies.” 25 (Doc. 44 at 2, quoting Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, Cal., 302 F.3d 928, 957 n. 28 (9th Cir. 26 2002).) Therefore, the magistrate judge found Mitchell could not proceed with claim against Rodriguez 27 in his official capacity. (Id.) The magistrate judge recommended the unopposed motion to dismiss be 28 granted and the matter proceed against Rodriguez in his individual capacity only. (Id.) 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties. It notified them that 2 || objections, if any, were to be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 44 at 2.) In addition, | 3 || Court advised the parties “that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 4 || waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. at 3, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 5 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) The parties did not file objections, a 6 || the time to do so has expired. 7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 8 || review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings an 9 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 7, 2023 (Doc. 44) are 11 ADOPTED in full. 12 2. Defendant Rodriguez’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 38) is GRANTED. 13 3. Plaintiff's official capacity claim against Rodriguez for damages is DISMISSED. 14 4. This case shall proceed on Plaintiff's First Amendment Free Exercise claim against 15 defendant Rodriguez in his individual capacity. 16 5. Defendant Rodriguez SHALL file an answer within 14 days of the date of service of 17 this order. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: _ March 15, 2023 ( LAW pA L. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28