1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUSSELL KEITH GAULT, Case No. CV 20-10687 PA (PVC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Second Amended 18 Complaint, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, all the records 19 and files herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, 20 and Defendant’s Objections. After having made a de novo determination of the portions 21 of the Report and Recommendation to which Objections were directed, the Court concurs 22 with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. 23 The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s contention that the Second Amended 24 Complaint fails to adequately allege that the officers summoned to subdue Plaintiff in the 25 January 3, 2017 Incident were aware of his mental condition. The Ninth Circuit has 26 repeatedly instructed that “pro se pleadings . . . are to be liberally construed on a motion 27 to dismiss.” Capp v. Cnty. of San Diego,

(9th Cir. 2019); see also 28 Hebbe v. Pliler,

(9th Cir. 2010) (“[Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

1 || (2009)] incorporated the [Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)] pleading 2 || standard and Twombly did not alter courts’ treatment of pro se filings; accordingly, we 3 || continue to construe pro se filings liberally when evaluating them under /gbal.”); Entler v. 4 || Gregoire,

(9th Cir. 2017) (“A pro se complaint must be ‘liberally 5 || construed,’ since ‘a pro se complaint, however clumsily pleaded, must be held to less 6 || stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’’’) (quoting Erickson v. 7 || Pardus,

(2007)). Liberally construed, the facts alleged in Causes of 8 || Action No. | and No. 2 adequately state an intentional infliction of emotional distress 9 || claim sufficient to survive the pleading stage. 10 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 11 (1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED 12 || IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 13 (2) | The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Cause of Action 14 || No. 3. The claims and allegations in Cause of Action No. 3 are dismissed with prejudice 15 || for failure to state a claim as to the First Set of Continuing Harassment Incidents and 16 || dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction as to the Second and Third Sets of 17 || Continuing Harassment Incidents. 18 (3) | The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to surviving Causes of 19 || Action No. 1 (January 3, 2017 Incident) and No. 2 (January 9, 2017 Incident). Defendant 20 || is ORDERED to file and serve an Answer to Causes of Action No. | and No. 2 within 21 || fourteen days of the date of this Order. 22 || DATED: September 30, 2021 . 23 24 Lr , Cte biz

25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28