1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES DARREN CRAWFORD, Case No. 14-cv-05578-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 v. RECOMMENDATION, AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 10 JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants. 11

12 13 On December 22, 2014, plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint 14 under

, and consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Docket No. 1. 15 The case was assigned to a magistrate judge who on May 17, 2016, ordered service on several 16 defendants from the second amended complaint but also dismissed several defendants who had not 17 yet appeared in the case and consented to a magistrate judge. Docket No. 15. The served 18 defendants consented to a magistrate judge (Docket No. 28) and the case was closed when 19 defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment was granted on September 29, 20 2017 (Docket No. 69). 21 On November 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit held in Williams v. King,

, 503-04 22 (9th Cir. 2017) that all parties including unserved defendants must consent to proceed before a 23 magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest.

Plaintiff later appealed the dismissal and closing of 24 his case. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the case, finding that the magistrate judge 25 dismissed claims against defendants Bell, Gongora, Hall, Love and Williams before those 26 defendants had been served and consented. Docket No. 94. The Ninth Circuit vacated only the 27 magistrate judge’s May 17, 2016, order of service that dismissed the defendants who had not 1 dismiss or motion for summary judgment.

The case was then reassigned on a random basis to 2 this District Judge. 3 The matter was reopened, and the Court treated the magistrate judge’s May 17, 2016, order 4 dismissing defendants Bell, Gongora, Hall, Love and Williams as a Report and Recommendation. 5 The parties were provided an opportunity to file written objections to the Report and 6 Recommendation, and both parties submitted filings. 7 The Court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s report recommending that: defendant Hall 8 be dismissed due to plaintiff’s speculative and conclusory allegations that Hall failed to properly 9 supervise his subordinates; defendants Williams, Love and Bell be dismissed due to plaintiff’s 10 failure to plead specific facts demonstrating that the defendants conspired against him; and that 11 defendant Gongora be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to specify what constitutional right 12 Gongora violated and how he violated that right. The report noted that plaintiff had been provided 13 an opportunity to cure these deficiencies, but failed to provide sufficient allegations in the second 14 amended complaint. 15 Plaintiff filed objections (Docket Nos. 101, 104) but did not address the findings in the 16 Report and Recommendation. Instead, plaintiff argued that the motion to dismiss and motion for 17 summary judgment should have also been vacated and that he should be provided an opportunity 18 to file a third amended complaint. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity in his objections to 19 present sufficient allegations regarding these defendants and claims, but in effect declined to do 20 so. There is no good reason to allow a third amended complaint. Plaintiff also stated that more 21 information about these defendants would have been obtained in discovery. But as the Supreme 22 Court determined in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009), “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 23 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not” meet the federal 24 pleading standard, which “does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with 25 nothing more than conclusions.” 26 Plaintiff’s objections are overruled, and the Court adopts the report. For the reasons 27 articulated in the Report and Recommendation as well as in this order, defendants Bell, Gongora, 1 prejudice because plaintiff was already provided leave to amend and further amendment would be 2 || futile. The Clerk is requested to close this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: January 4, 2021 5 6 JAMES TO 7 United Stftes District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

13

15

16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28