Feathers v. Miranda et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; this action shall proceed on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint on his claim brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act against Warden Stu Sherman, in his official capacity, all other claims and defendants are dismissed; this action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/15/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK SHAWN FEATHERS,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:15-cv-00090-DAD-SKO (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION

MIRANDA, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 16, 17)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, Mark Shawn Feathers, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred

19

to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the

20

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

21

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff alleges generally that the named defendants

22

“participated in years of discrimination against” him. (Doc. No. 16 at 8-11.) On February 3,

23

2017, the magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint and issued findings

24

and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff be allowed to proceed with his claim under

25

the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act against defendant Warden

26

Sherman in his official capacity and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed with

27

prejudice. (Doc. No. 17 at 7.) The findings and recommendations were served that same day and

28

allowed twenty-one days for plaintiff to file objections. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections to the
1

1

findings and recommendations on February 27, 2017. (Doc. No. 18.)

2

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

3

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections

4

filed by plaintiff, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record

5

and by proper analysis.

6

The magistrate judge correctly noted in the latest screening order that plaintiff had failed

7

to allege in his second amended complaint sufficient facts demonstrating “that he was

8

intentionally discriminated against and treated differently than other similarly situated

9

individuals.” (Doc. No. 17 at 5.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s

10

equal protection claims be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 7.) In his objection to the magistrate

11

judge’s findings and recommendations, plaintiff appears to request that the court open discovery

12

with respect to his Equal Protection claims, suggesting an “investigative remedy, as this court can

13

do” in order “to review the [a]pplications for ‘IDA jobs.’” (Doc. No. 18 at 2.) Alternatively,

14

plaintiff requests that the court itself review the records of similarly situated inmates. (Id.) The

15

Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff whose “complaint is deficient under Rule 8” is “not

16

entitled to discovery.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 686 (2009). Accordingly, this court

17

denies plaintiff’s requests to (1) open discovery; and (2) review such records on its own accord as

18

such a request is improper.

19

For the reasons set forth above:

20

1. The February 3, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 17) are adopted in

21

full;

22

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s second amended complaint on his claim

23

brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act against

24

Warden Stu Sherman, in his official capacity;

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

3. All of plaintiff’s other claims against all named defendants other than Warden Stu

2
3
4
5

Sherman are dismissed without leave to amend; and
4. The action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 15, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3