Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Santos Leonel Garcia, a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights action against Dr. Lorenc Malellari seeking to hold him liable for violations of his civil rights related to treatment provided for a rectal prolapse without Plaintiff's consent. Because Garcia is a prisoner, the magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) in a screening order (Doc. 9). That order found that Garcia stated a cognizable claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also found that Garcia failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, and that he failed to state a claim under state law because he did not comply with the California Government Claims Act.
In response to the screening order, Garcia indicated that he was willing to proceed on the cognizable claim. The magistrate judge then issued Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 13) recommending that the action proceed on the cognizable claims and that all other claims be dismissed. The court served the Findings and Recommendations on Garcia and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. The court also advised Garcia that the failure to file timely objections may result in the waiver of rights on appeal, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). Garcia did not file objections, and the time to do so expired.
The Court’s Holding
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the court concluded that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis, and it adopted the Findings and Recommendations issued on September 23, 2026 (Doc. 12). The court ordered that this action shall proceed only on Plaintiff's due process claim. The court further ordered that all other claims raised in the complaint are dismissed.
The court separately addressed the claims arising under state law, finding that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate because the dismissal is for failure to comply with the California Government Claims Act. Citing Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017), the court ordered that Plaintiff's claims under state law are dismissed without prejudice, leaving Garcia free to pursue those claims if he satisfies the claims-presentation requirement. Finally, the court referred the matter to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations after conducting de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), even though the plaintiff filed no objections within the 14-day period.
- Garcia's action will proceed only on his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim concerning medical treatment performed without his consent.
- The Eighth Amendment claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim, along with all other claims raised in the complaint.
- The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice rather than with prejudice because the dismissal was based on noncompliance with the California Government Claims Act, a procedural prerequisite.
- The court's citation to Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris reflects the Ninth Circuit's rule that dismissals for failure to comply with claims-presentation requirements should generally be without prejudice.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the two-stage screening and review process for prisoner civil rights complaints: initial screening by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, followed by findings and recommendations subject to de novo review by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court's decision to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice, rather than with prejudice, preserves the plaintiff's ability to refile those claims if he complies with the California Government Claims Act's presentation requirements.
The ruling also demonstrates the practical consequence of failing to file objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. Although the court conducted de novo review despite the absence of objections, the plaintiff's silence left the magistrate judge's analysis unchallenged, and the court adopted it in full.