(PC) Turner v. Porter et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/11/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEDRIC TURNER,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:20-cv-00252-DAD-EPG

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

M. PORTER, et al.,
(Doc. No. 13)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Dedric Turner is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.

20

On July 2, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and found

21

that he did not state any cognizable claims in his complaint. (Doc. No. 11.) The screening order

22

directed plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or a notice of his intent to stand on his

23

complaint, subject to the magistrate judge issuing findings and recommendations to the

24

undersigned, recommending that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 8.)

25

On August 10, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice stating that he “would like to go forward with [his]

26

original complaint.” (Doc. No. 12.)

27
28

Accordingly, on August 19, 2020, the magistrate judge issued the pending findings and
recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed without leave to amend due to
1

1

plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 13.) Specifically, the magistrate judge

2

found that because it appears that plaintiff is challenging the duration of his confinement, as

3

opposed to the conditions of his confinement, he could not assert his claims in the pending § 1983

4

action, and was instead required to assert such claims in a petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 (Id.

5

at 3–4.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that

6

any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service thereof. (Id. at 6.) No

7

objections to those findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so

8

has now passed.

9

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has

10

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds

11

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

12

Accordingly,

13

1.

14

adopted in full;

15

2.

16

This action is dismissed without leave to amend due to plaintiff’s failure to state a
claim; and

17
18

The findings and recommendations issued on August 19, 2020 (Doc. No. 13) are

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

October 11, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In his complaint, plaintiff asserts that various defendants filed false prison rules violation
reports against with respect to him, resulted in him “having to endure extra days incarcerated . .
..” (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) Although the complaint does not appear to assert a due process claim based
on the filing of these allegedly false rules violation reports, in the July 2, 2020 screening order,
the magistrate judge, “[i]n the abundance of caution, . . . provide[d] the . . . legal standards that
may apply to the substantive issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent that Plaintiff . . .
believes that an amendment would present facts that allow him to proceed in this § 1983 case.”
(Doc. No. 11 at 3.) Included in that summary were the legal standards applicable to the asserting
of a due process claim based on the filing of a false rules violation report. (See id. at 4.) Plaintiff,
however, did not file an amended complaint or otherwise inform the court that he was seeking to
assert due process claims in this action.
2