Baker v. Battad
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J Hatta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) regarding Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or failure to state a claim. The court adopted the R&R, granting the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment and retaliation claims with leave to amend, and denying the motion to dismiss the qualified immunity claim without prejudice.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R. Although the order cites the 'clear error' standard applicable when no objections are filed, it also cites the statutory authority for de novo review. Since the court found the R&R 'thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error,' the adoption is procedurally sound under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). |
Granting in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Battad)“GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss ... Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Battad WITH LEAVE TO AMEND” | unclear | unsure The order does not recite the specific factual or legal basis for dismissing the Eighth Amendment claim, relying entirely on the adopted R&R. Without the R&R's text, it is impossible to verify if the legal standard for an Eighth Amendment claim (e.g., deliberate indifference) was correctly applied to the facts. However, granting leave to amend is standard practice when a complaint is facially deficient but potentially curable. |
Granting in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Retaliation claim against Defendant Arizaga)“and Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a retaliation claim against Defendant Arizaga WITH LEAVE TO AMEND” | unclear | unsure Similar to the Eighth Amendment claim, the order does not state the specific legal reasoning for dismissing the retaliation claim. It relies on the R&R. The decision to grant leave to amend is procedurally appropriate if the claim fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) but could be cured by additional facts. |
Denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Qualified Immunity claim against Defendant Battad)“DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Battad on qualified immunity grounds without prejudice” | unclear | agree with court The court denies the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. Qualified immunity is typically an affirmative defense or a matter for summary judgment, not usually a basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) unless the right is clearly established and the facts are undisputed. Denying it 'without prejudice' suggests the court found the motion premature or insufficiently briefed at the pleading stage, which is a common and defensible procedural ruling. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R (clear error in the absence of objections, de novo for objections). It explicitly states that no objections were filed and that the court reviewed the R&R for clear error. The rulings (granting/denying the motion in part) follow directly from the adoption of the R&R. The order is concise and follows standard federal district court practice for adopting an R&R.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOMMIE LEE BAKER, III, Case No.: 19-CV-1438-AJB (BLM)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 14 R. BATTAD AND O. ARIZAGA, AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 15 Defendants. No. 13); AND 16 (2) GRANTING IN PART AND 17 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 6) 18 19 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 20 administrative remedies, or in the alternative, motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 21 (Doc. No. 6.) The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major for 22 a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on January 30, 2020. (Doc. 23 No. 13.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted 24 in part. (Id. at 1.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by 25 February 26, 2020, and replies by March 18, 2020. (Id. at 12–13.) 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 27 judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 28 a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 2 made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 3 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 4 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 5 recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 6 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 7 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 8 |! Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 9 hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; (2) GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss □□□□□□□□□□ □ 10 Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Battad WITH LEAVE TO AMEND and 11 || Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a retaliation claim against Defendant 12 || Arizaga WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; and (3) DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss 13 || Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Battad on qualified immunity grounds without 14 prejudice. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s 15 ||R&R by August 1, 2020. 16 17 IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 || Dated: June 23, 2020 20 Hon. Anthony J Hatta 71 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28