Quiroga v. King et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Case With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim 36 ; DISMISSAL Counts as Strike Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/8/17: Clerk to Close Case. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

MONICO J. QUIROGA,

14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

16
THEODORE KING,
17
Defendant.
18

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
CASE WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 36)

19

DISMISSAL COUNTs AS STRIKE
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

20

CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Plaintiff initiated this action on November 9, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On December 14,
2016, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case screened Plaintiff’s third amended
complaint and, finding that it did not state any cognizable claims, recommended the case
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 36.) On December 27,

1

2016, Plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings.

(ECF No. 37.)

2

Plaintiff’s one-page objection argues, without explaining why, that Plaintiff should be

3

allowed to amend to cure the identified deficiencies in his Due Process claims. (Id.)

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,

5

the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

6

entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the

7

record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objection has been considered and found to

8

lack merit. Plaintiff was granted three opportunities to attempt to amend his claims to

9

make them cognizable and each time he failed to adhere to the applicable pleading

10

standards.

11

conclude that Plaintiff can plead a cognizable claim. See Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. Power,

12

623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that leave to amend need not be granted when the

13

plaintiff has be given repeated opportunities to correct deficiencies).

14
15
16

Given this history and the objections, there is no reasonable basis to

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on December 14
2016 (ECF No. 36) in full;

17

2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;

18

3. Dismissal counts as a STRIKE pursuant to the “three-strikes” provision of

19
20
21

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close
this case.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 8, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2