Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ezor v. Lacey, CV 19-4020-JVS (AGR). (2019)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20191030e55 Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES V. SELNA , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the complaint, records on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") and the Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge. By or
More

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the complaint, records on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") and the Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge.

By order dated August 15, 2019, the District Judge Klausner denied Plaintiff's motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Rosenberg. (Dkt. No. 26.)

In his objections, Plaintiff advises the court that, on September 11, 2019, he filed a petition for extraordinary writ of mandamus in the United States Supreme Court in which he seeks an order directing the Superior Court to dismiss the state criminal case against him or, in the alternative, disqualify the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and substitute the Attorney General of California as prosecutors. Plaintiff states that his petition remains pending before the United States Supreme Court. According to the petition, Superior Court Judge Veals conducted hearings and denied the motion. On April 12, 2019, the California Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate. On May 1, 2019, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review and application for stay.

Plaintiff's objections to the Report are without merit.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Judge Veals' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted without leave to amend.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Lacey and Howick's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted with leave to file a First Amended Complaint based on allegations of prosecutorial access to privileged defense information as described in the Report.

If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, it must be filed within 30 days after entry of this Order, it must bear the docket number assigned to this case, be labeled "First Amended Complaint," and be complete in and of itself without reference to the original complaint, attachment, pleading or other documents.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a blank civil rights complaint form.

Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to file a timely First Amended Complaint within 30 days after the entry of this order, this action may be dismissed.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer