Burnett v. Lima et al
Filing
22
ORDER adopting 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismissing certain of Plaintiff's claims signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/29/2017. Defendants, M. Lefler (Correctional Officer); L. Lima (Law Librarian); Heather Ayon (Correctional Officer) and R. D. Cranston Correctional Officer) dismissed from action. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CARLOS BURNETT,
12
No. 1:16-cv-01671-DAD-SAB
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
L. LIMA, et al.,
15
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 18, 20, 21)
16
Plaintiff Carlos Burnett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
17
18
civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United
19
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On September 5, 2017, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 18.) On
20
21
September 15, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
22
recommending that plaintiff’s access to courts claim against defendants Lima, Ayon, and Cranton
23
be dismissed, and that the action proceed on plaintiff’s claims of excessive force and failure to
24
protect against defendant Constello, Urban, and Jones. (Doc. No. 20.) The parties were provided
25
fourteen days during which to file objections to those findings and recommendations. (Id.)
26
Plaintiff did so on September 28, 2017. (Doc. No. 21.)
27
/////
28
/////
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
2
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
3
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s objections and finds them to lack merit. As noted in the
4
5
findings and recommendations, a plaintiff proceeding on an access to courts claim must allege
6
facts demonstrating that plaintiff suffered actual injury, that is, “actual prejudice to contemplated
7
or existing litigation.” (Doc. No. 20 at 2–3) (quoting Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d
8
1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011)). Moreover, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that the legal
9
claim plaintiff sought to pursue was “nonfrivolous.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353 (2006).
10
In both his first amended complaint and his objections, plaintiff contends that the
11
constitutional violation is itself the injury. (See Doc. No. 18 at 5; Doc. No. 21 at 1.) This
12
argument is contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Greene in which the court held that “actual
13
injury is a jurisdictional requirement that flows from the standing doctrine and may not be
14
waived.” Id. (quoting Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348). Plaintiff has stated no facts that would allow the
15
court to conclude that his inability to access the prison law library frustrated his ability to
16
prosecute his claim. Moreover, plaintiff has not alleged any facts which, if true, would enable the
17
court to conclude that the legal claim he sought to pursue was non-frivolous. Instead, plaintiff
18
has merely provided the court with conclusory statements that the claim he sought to pursue “had
19
merit” and “was nonfrivolous.” (Doc. No. 21 at 2.)
20
For these reasons,
21
1.
22
The findings and recommendations dated September 15, 2017 (Doc. No. 20) are
adopted in full;
23
2.
24
Plaintiff’s access to the courts claim against defendants Lima, Ayon, and Cranton
is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief;
25
3.
26
This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s excessive force and failure to protect
claims against defendants Constello, Urban, and Jones; and
27
/////
28
/////
2
1
4.
2
3
4
This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for initiation of
service of process and further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 29, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?