Griffin v. Hamilton et al

Filing 5

ORDER ADOPTING 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Dismissing Claims with prejudice and ORDER DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/12/2018. (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 ANTOIAN GRIFFIN, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 1:17-cv-01741-DAD-MJS Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY Y. HAMILTON and GARY A. HUNT, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CLAIM, AND DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. Nos. 2, 3) Plaintiff Antoian Griffin proceeds pro se in this civil rights action brought against Judge 18 Jeffrey Y. Hamilton and attorney Gary A. Hunt. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a 19 United States 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 On December 29, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 22 determined that plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 failed to state a claim upon which relief 23 may be granted and that, correspondingly, the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law 24 claims. (Doc. No. 3.) The magistrate judge also noted that plaintiff’s application to proceed in 25 forma pauperis was incomplete, but that since the action was without merit, the application 26 should simply be denied. (Id.) The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s § 1983 claims 27 be dismissed without leave to amend. (Id.) The findings and recommendations provided plaintiff 28 with fourteen days in which to file objections thereto. On January 12, 2018, plaintiff filed 1 1 2 objections. (Doc. No. 4.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 3 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 4 plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported 5 by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s citation to the decision in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 6 U.S. 1, 18 (1958) is no-responsive to the analysis set out in the findings and recommendations 7 here, as that decision does not address either judicial immunity or the principle that a private 8 attorney does not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983. 9 10 11 Given the foregoing: 1. The findings and recommendations issued December 29, 2017 (Doc. No. 3) are adopted in full; 12 2. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 13 3. Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed with prejudice; 14 4. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; 15 5. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and 16 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and close this case. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 12, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?