(PC) Smith v. Becerra et al

Filing 40

ORDER ADOPTING 34 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action Without Leave to Amend signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/18/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
BECERRA, et al.,

15

No. 1:19-cv-01358-NONE-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. No. 34)

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

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

19

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 21, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

20
21

recommending dismissal of this action without leave to amend due to plaintiff’s failure to state a

22

claim. (Doc. No. 34.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and

23

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after

24

service. (Id. at 13.) Following the granting of an extension of time, plaintiff’s objections were

25

due on or before June 16, 2020. (Doc. No. 36.) On July 14, 2020, plaintiff filed untimely

26

objections, together with a document styled as a “Notice of Error with Returning of Legal Mail.”

27

(Doc. Nos. 38, 39.)

28

/////
1

1

In the notice, plaintiff explained that he completed his objections to the findings and

2

recommendations on May 25, 2020 and gave them to staff at Pelican Bay State Prison for mailing

3

on that date. (Doc. No. 38, p. 2.) Plaintiff stated that on July 6, 2020, after he was transferred to

4

California State Prison – Corcoran, the envelope containing his objections was returned to him.

5

Plaintiff has attached the envelope to his filing, pointing out that it shows a postage date stamp of

6

June 11, 2020. Plaintiff therefore requests that the court fully consider his objections, as the

7

untimely filing was due to an error that was not caused by plaintiff. (Id.) Having considered

8

plaintiff’s filing, the court finds it appropriate to consider his objections as having been timely

9

filed.

10

In his objections, despite being repeatedly admonished by the court as to the proper

11

standards for properly joining claims and defendants and for pleading a conspiracy, plaintiff

12

continues to argue that he should be permitted to proceed in this action alleging a vast conspiracy

13

among the named defendants, spanning many years and numerous institutions. (Doc. No. 39.)

14

Plaintiff requests that the court consolidate this case with at least six other pending actions.1 To

15

this end, plaintiff has attached a proposed second amended complaint to his objections, in which

16

one hundred and ninety-nine (199) defendants are names, including employees of at least five

17

different CDCR institutions, as well as judicial officers, district attorneys, and public defenders

18

from at least four different county offices throughout the state of California. (Id. at 5–7.)
Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations are simply another bad faith

19
20

attempt on his part to bring improperly joined claims and defendants into a single action, and his

21

proposed second amended complaint again fails to provide support for the overarching conspiracy

22

plaintiff is attempting to allege. Plaintiff has deliberately and repeatedly, through several separate

23

legal actions, refused to abide by court orders setting forth the appropriate legal standards

24

governing the pleading of the claims he is apparently attempting to assert. To grant plaintiff leave

25

to amend and proceed on his proposed second amended complaint, which only compounds the

26

1

27
28

As discussed at length in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, four of these
actions began as a single action that was eventually severed into four separate cases. The court
has repeatedly rejected plaintiff’s attempts to have those cases rejoined as a single action. (Doc.
No. 34 at 3–4.)
2

1
2

deficiencies of his original and first amended complaints, would be futile.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

3

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

4

objections and proposed second amended complaint, the court concludes that the magistrate

5

judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 21, 2020, (Doc. No. 34), are adopted
in full;
2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of
closing the case and then to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 18, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3