United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2026

Rayshawn Hart v. Acting Warden Michael Pallares

Rayshawn Hart v. Acting Warden Michael Pallares
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided January 13, 2026
Rayshawn Hart v. Acting Warden Michael Pallares

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAYSHAWN HART, Case No. 1:23-cv-00977-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL 13 v. (Docs. 40, 42) ACTING WARDEN MICHAEL PALLARES, Defendant.

Rayshawn Hart is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel on her First Amended Complaint alleging violation of civil and constitutional Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.

10). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. 31).

The assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to grant Defendant Pallares’ motion to dismiss and dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without prejudice as to Defendant Pallares with Plaintiff granted leave to amend her Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Pallares. (Doc. 42 at 11-12).1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that objections were to be filed within fourteen days of service. (Id.). The Court further warned the parties that “failure to file any 1 Reference to pagination is to CM/ECF system pagination.

1 | objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (/d. at | 12 citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)). No party has filed any | objections and the time to do so has passed. (See docket).

4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 15, 2025 (Doc. 42) are 8 ADOPTED in full.

9 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 40) is GRANTED.

10 3. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) is DISMISSED without prejudice 11 as to Defendant Pallares and Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended 12 complaint asserting Eighth Amendment claim(s) against Defendant Pallares within 13 21 days of service of this order.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated: _ January 13, 2026 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.