1 O 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 EDUARDO ZARCO, Case No. CV 22-00594-MEMF (AS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 CONCLUSIONS AND v.

RECOMMNEDATIONS OF UNITED

14

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,

15 et, al., 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint filed by Plaintiff 20 Eduardo Zarco (“Zarco”), all of the records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of a 21 United States Magistrate Judge. After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the 22 Report and Recommendation to which Objections were directed, the Court concurs with and 23 accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. In sum, Zarco’s Objections do not 24 25 26 27 28 1 cause the Court to reconsider its decision to accept the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions and 2 recommendations.1 3 4 IT IS ORDERED that (1) Zarco’s claims against Defendant California Highway Patrol 5 and the individual defendants in their official capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (2) 6 Zarco’s claims against Defendant Officer Baca are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (3) Zarco’s 7 claims premised on federal and state criminal statutes are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (4) 8 Zarco’s state law claims against Defendant R. Symons are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (5) 9 Zarco’s state law claims against Defendant J. Ornelas in his individual capacity are DISMISSED 10 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; and (6) Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. 11 12 As described in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Zarco’s Fourth and 13 Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendants Symons and Ornelas, in their individual 14 capacities may proceed. And as also described in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 15 Recommendation, if Zarco is able to show relief from compliance with California’s Government 16 Claims Act, his state law claims against Defendant Ornelas may also proceed. 17 18 If Zarco wishes to amend his state law claims against Defendant J. Ornelas in his 19 individual capacity, Zarco is ORDERED to file a First Amended Complaint consistent with this 20 Order and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation no later than thirty (30) days from 21 the date of this Order. Zarco is also reminded of the requirement that he serve his First Amended 22 23

24 1 On page 9 of the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge cites to Vaezi v. Stanley, No. CV 21- 3027-JFW(Ex), 2021 WL 6103523, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2021), among other citations, for the 25 proposition that the CHP is not a “person” for the purposes of a § 1983 action. ECF No. 12 at 9. On January 10, 2023, after the Magistrate Judge issued this Report and Recommendation, the Ninth Circuit Court of 26 Appeals vacated and remanded the action in Vaezi on other grounds. Accordingly, the citation now should read Vaezi v. Stanley, No. CV 21-3027-JFW(Ex), 2021 WL 6103523, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2021), 27 vacated and remanded on other grounds by Vaezi, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Stanley, et al., Defendants- Appellees, No. 21-56273, 2023 WL 142651 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2023). 28 1 Complaint on Defendants Symons and Ornelas (or show waiver of service), as discussed in 2 footnote 5 of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 3 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the 5 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants. 6 7 RESOURCES FOR SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES 8 9 The Court appreciates that Zarco is proceeding pro se, i.e., without legal representation, 10 and that—as described in his various filings—he has had great difficulty understanding the legal 11 process. He is nonetheless are required to comply with Court orders, the Local Rules, and the 12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.2.3. The Local Rules are available on 13 the Court’s website, http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/court-procedures/local-rules. 14 15 Although the Court cannot provide legal advice to any party, including pro se litigants 16 (parties who are not represented by a lawyer), there is a free “Pro Se Clinic” that can provide 17 information and guidance about many aspects of civil litigation in this Court. Further information 18 is below: 19  Public Counsel runs a free Federal Pro Se Clinic where pro se litigants can get 20 information and guidance. The Clinic is located at the Roybal Federal Building and 21 Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 (note that the clinic may not 22 be open for in-person appointments during the pandemic). Pro se litigants must call or 23 submit an on-line application to request services as follows: on-line applications can be 24 submitted at http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/los-angeles, or call (213) 385-2977, ext. 270. 25  Public Counsel also has extensive resources for pro se litigants at its website located 26 at https://publiccounsel.org/services/federal-court/. 27  The Court is also informed that the LA Law Library, located across the street from the 28 First Street Courthouse at 301 W. First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, also has extensive 1 resources for pro se litigants. The LA Law Library can be reached via email 2 at reference@lalawlibrary.org, or via telephone at (213) 785-2513. 3 4 Dated: September 15, 2023 ___________________________________ 5

MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28