Edward Ronje v. King et al

Filing 14

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss with Prejudice as Barred by Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and for Failure to State a Claim; ORDER Directing Case Closure by Court Clerk, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/18/15. Strike per 28 USC 1915(g). CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

Case No. 1:14-cv-01589-LJO-JLT (PC)

9
10

EDWARD RONJE,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITH
PREJUDICE AS BARRED BY HECK V.
HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM

v.
(Docs. 1, 8, 11, 12)
KING, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING CASE CLOSURE
BY COURT CLERK
STRIKE PER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff, Edward Ronje, is a civil detainee who is currently proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action
on October 10, 2014. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Upon review initial review, it was discovered that Plaintiff was challenging the
assessment protocol which resulted in his civil detention. Thus, on December 29, 2014, an order
issued giving Plaintiff thirty days to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as barred

24

by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). (Doc. 8.) On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed

25

his objections. (Doc. 11.) Findings and Recommendations issued on April 14, 2015, screening

26

the Complaint and finding that it did not state a cognizable claim and is barred by Heck. (Doc.

27

12.) The Findings and Recommendations was served on Plaintiff that same date and allowed

28
1

1

thirty days for filing of objections. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff filed his objections on May 7, 2015

2

seeking leave to amend. (Doc. 13.)

3

However, as accurately stated in the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff’s claims

4

either directly or indirectly challenge the validity of his confinement, which may only be pursued

5

in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff has failed to state any claims that are

6

cognizable under section 1983. Plaintiff may not amend the Complaint to change the nature of

7

claims he has raised in this suit to attempt to state a cognizable claim, George v. Smith, 507 F.3d

8

605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) and the deficiencies in Plaintiff's pleadings are not capable of being

9

cured through amendment, Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012).

10

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

11

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the

12

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

13
14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

full;

15
16

The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 14, 2014 (Doc. 12), is adopted in

2.

This case is dismissed with prejudice as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 487-88 (1994) and for Plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim;

17
18

3.

Dismissal of this action counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

19

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

May 18, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2