From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Page v. Stanley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 5, 2013
NO. CV 11-2255 CAS (SS) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2013)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding the Constitution "does not guarantee that there will be any government response to a petition or that the government will take any action regarding the relief demanded by the petitioner. Specifically, the First Amendment does not impose an affirmative obligation on the government to consider, respond to, or grant any relief on a citizen's petition for redress of grievances"

Summary of this case from London v. City of Redlands
See 15 Summaries

Opinion

NO. CV 11-2255 CAS (SS)

06-05-2013

KEITH PAGE, Plaintiff, v. WARREN STANLEY, et al., Defendants.

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Third Amended Complaint in the above-captioned matter, all the records and files herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and Plaintiff's Objections. The Court notes that in his Objections, Plaintiff states that "he has no objection to the Magistrate Judge [sic] recommendation." (Objections at 3).

After having made a de novo determination of the Report and Recommendation and having reviewed the Objections, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims in the Third Amended Complaint against Defendants Stefanoff and Siegl are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve copies of this Order by United States mail on Plaintiff at his current address of record and on counsel for Defendants.

____________________________

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Summaries of

Page v. Stanley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 5, 2013
NO. CV 11-2255 CAS (SS) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2013)

holding the Constitution "does not guarantee that there will be any government response to a petition or that the government will take any action regarding the relief demanded by the petitioner. Specifically, the First Amendment does not impose an affirmative obligation on the government to consider, respond to, or grant any relief on a citizen's petition for redress of grievances"

Summary of this case from London v. City of Redlands

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Tuolumne Cnty.

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Steward v. Lynch

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of former prisoner's complaints because he "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Flow-Sunkett v. Diaz

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Brown v. Newsom

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Gil v. Warden

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Gil v. Doe

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Baker v. Beam

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Brookins v. Metts

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Buckley v. Johnson

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Shehee v. Perez

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Lipsey v. Reddy

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Simmons v. Atkins

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Garcia v. Podsakoff

dismissing Section 1983 claim alleging that officers failed to conduct thorough investigation of plaintiff's complaints because plaintiff "had no constitutional right to any investigation of his citizen's complaint, much less a 'thorough' investigation or a particular outcome"

Summary of this case from Garcia v. Podsakoff
Case details for

Page v. Stanley

Case Details

Full title:KEITH PAGE, Plaintiff, v. WARREN STANLEY, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 5, 2013

Citations

NO. CV 11-2255 CAS (SS) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2013)

Citing Cases

Windham v. Pike

, there is no such claim. See Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“[W]e can…

Wilson v. Tuolumne Cnty.

To the degree Plaintiff is trying to hold the individuals or others liable for an independent, unspecified…

43 Citing Cases