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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?