Bryan Kominiak v. County of San Diego, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending the dismissal of various claims in a prisoner civil rights case, noting that no objections were filed by the plaintiff. The court adopted the R&R in its entirety, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss with specific leave to amend for certain claims and without leave for others, and ordering the plaintiff to file a third amended complaint by October 28, 2026.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, when no timely objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation. This is procedurally correct. |
Dismissal of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the County of San Diego with leave to amend“GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the County of San Diego WITH LEAVE TO AMEND” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to dismiss this claim with leave to amend. While the specific legal reasoning for the dismissal (e.g., Monell liability failure) is contained in the R&R rather than this order, granting leave to amend is a standard and appropriate remedy for pro se plaintiffs when pleading deficiencies are curable. The adoption of this specific ruling is consistent with the R&R. |
Dismissal of Fourteenth Amendment claim against the County of San Diego without leave to amend“GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claim against the County of San Diego WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the recommendation to dismiss this claim without leave to amend. Denying leave to amend is appropriate if the amendment would be futile or if the plaintiff has had sufficient opportunities to amend. The court's adoption of this specific ruling is consistent with the R&R. |
Dismissal of ADA claim against all Defendants without leave to amend“GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the ADA claim against all Defendants WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the recommendation to dismiss the ADA claims without leave to amend. This is likely because the ADA does not provide a private right of action for damages in this context or because the claims are duplicative of § 1983 claims. The adoption is consistent with the R&R. |
Dismissal of personal capacity claims against Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez with leave to amend“GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the personal capacity claims against Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez WITH LEAVE TO AMEND” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the recommendation to dismiss these claims with leave to amend. This is a standard procedural step to allow the plaintiff to cure pleading deficiencies regarding the specific actions of the sheriff in his personal capacity. |
Dismissal of official capacity claims against Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez without leave to amend“GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the official capacity claims against Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the recommendation to dismiss these claims without leave to amend. Official capacity claims against a sheriff are often treated as claims against the county itself. If the county claims are being dismissed or repleaded, duplicative official capacity claims may be dismissed without leave if they do not state a separate viable claim. |
Ordering Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint and identify Doe defendants by October 28, 2026“ORDERS Plaintiff Kominiak to accomplish the following no later than October 28, 2026: Identify all Doe defendants; File a third amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the R&R and substituting named defendants for Doe defendants; and Serve the summons and third amended complaint on all defendants.” | de novo | agree with court The court set a specific deadline for the plaintiff to amend the complaint and identify unknown defendants. This is a common and appropriate order to manage the case and ensure the plaintiff complies with pleading requirements. The deadline is reasonable (approx. 3 months). |
Granting leave for early discovery to identify Doe defendants“GRANTS Kominiak leave to serve early discovery on the County limited to identifying Doe defendants.” | de novo | agree with court The court granted limited early discovery to help the plaintiff identify the Doe defendants. This is a discretionary ruling that is appropriate to assist a pro se plaintiff in curing the deficiency of naming unknown defendants. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R when no objections are filed (clear error). It cites the appropriate statutory and case law authorities (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Raddatz, Remsing, Campbell, Reyna-Tapia). The court's finding that the R&R is 'thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear errors' is a sufficient basis for adoption under the applicable standard. The specific rulings (dismissals with/without leave, discovery order) are adopted from the R&R, which is the correct procedure. There are no gaps in the reasoning provided in this order itself, as the detailed legal analysis is contained in the R&R which the court has reviewed and adopted.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN KOMINIAK, Case No.: 25cv3113-LL-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 24];
14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ET AL., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 15 Defendants. MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF’S 16 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CLAIM AGAINST 17 THE COUNTY AND SHERIFF MARTINEZ [ECF No. 8] 18 21 On August 14, 2025, Plaintiff Bryan Kominiak, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 22 filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of California which was removed to federal court 23 on November 12, 2025. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s operative complaint is an Amended 24 Complaint alleging causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourteenth 25 Amendment, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), California 26 Government Code § 845.6, and professional negligence. ECF No. 5. On December 15, 27 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Amended Complaint fails to 28 1 state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) and does not provide a short and plain statement that puts the 2 County on notice of the claims (Rule 8(a)(2)). ECF No. 8. Plaintiff filed an opposition to 3 the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and Defendants filed a Reply (ECF No. 11). 4 The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel Butcher for a 5 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Civil Local 6 Rule HC.2. On July 8, 2026, Judge Butcher issued an R&R recommending that the Court 7 issue an Order as follows: 8 • DISMISSING the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the County of San Diego WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, and DISMISSING the Fourteenth 9 Amendment claim against the County of San Diego WITHOUT 10 LEAVE TO AMEND; • DISMISSING the ADA claim against all Defendants WITHOUT 11 LEAVE TO AMEND; 12 • DISMISSING the personal capacity claims against Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, and DISMISSING the official 13 capacity claims against Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez WITHOUT LEAVE 14 TO AMEND; 15 • ORDERING Kominiak to accomplish the following no later than ninety days after the adoption and approval of this Report and 16 Recommendation: 17 o Identify all Doe defendants; o File a third amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies 18 identified above and substituting named defendants for Doe 19 defendants; and o Serve the summons and third amended complaint on all 20 defendants. 21 • GRANTING Kominiak leave to serve early discovery on the County limited to identifying Doe defendants. 22 23 ECF No. 24 at 10-11. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the district 25 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 26 district court judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to 27 which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 28 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see 1 also United States. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 2 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of a timely objection, the Court 3 “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 4 accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 5 Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206) (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States 6 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review 7 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 8 otherwise.”). 9 Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than July 23, 2026. 10 ECF No. 24. To date, no objections have been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 11 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds it is thorough, well- 12 reasoned, and contains no clear errors. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and 13 Recommendation in its entirety. 14 CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and 16 Recommendation in its entirety as follows: 17 • GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the County of San Diego WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, and GRANTS 18 the Motion to Dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claim against the 19 County of San Diego WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;
20 • GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the ADA claim against all Defendants 21 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;
22 • GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the personal capacity claims against 23 Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, and GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the official capacity claims against Sheriff Kelly 24 A. Martinez WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; 25 • ORDERS Plaintiff Kominiak to accomplish the following no later than 26 October 28, 2026: 27 o Identify all Doe defendants; 28 o File a third amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies 1 identified in the R&R and substituting named defendants for Doe defendants; and . . o Serve the summons and third amended complaint on all 3 defendants. 4 e GRANTS Kominiak leave to serve early discovery on the County 5 limited to identifying Doe defendants. 6 , Dated: July 29, 2026 KO 8 Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28