(PC) Argel v. Godwin et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/2022 ADOPTING 20 Findings and Recommendations. 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

JOHN WILLIAM ARGEL,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

No. 1:21-cv-00597-NONE-BAM (PC)

GODWIN, et al.,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 20)
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff John William Argel is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On September 16, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second

20

amended complaint and issued an order granting plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint

21

or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty (30) days. (Doc. No. 17.) In lieu of filing a third

22

amended complaint, on October 14, 2021, plaintiff filed a response to the screening order. (Doc.

23

No. 19.) The magistrate judge construed the response as an indication that plaintiff wished to

24

stand on the allegations of his second amended complaint. Accordingly, on October 12, 2021, the

25

magistrate judge re-screened the allegations of the second amended complaint, and issued

26

findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, due

27

to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. No. 20.) On

28

November 8, 2021, plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations and re1

1

filed his response to the magistrate judge’s screening order. (Doc. Nos. 22, 23.) On November

2

29, 2021, plaintiff filed a further request for relief reiterating his request for an emergency

3

injunction based on the allegations of his second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 24.)

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

5

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

6

objections, response to the screening order, and further request for relief, the court finds the

7

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

8
9

Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that plaintiff’s laundry list of unrelated
complaints is not adequately linked to any named individual defendant. (Doc. No. 23 at 1.)

10

Plaintiff argues that he has established a pattern of unconstitutional behavior. (Id.) Even

11

assuming plaintiff has alleged facts establishing a pattern of unconstitutional behavior, he must

12

still link the offending conduct to a named defendant. The magistrate judge correctly found that

13

plaintiff has failed to do so. Dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims would be sufficient on this

14

ground alone.

15

Plaintiff also objects to the finding that he failed to allege supervisory liability but he fails

16

to establish any errors in the magistrate judge’s reasoning in this regard. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff

17

indicates he does not agree with the conclusion reached as to this issue in the pending findings

18

and recommendations on policy grounds, but this court cannot ignore the Supreme Court’s

19

interpretation of § 1983.

20

Plaintiff next objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that his second amended

21

complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. However, the

22

magistrate judge did not recommend dismissal of the second amended complaint on those

23

grounds and this objection is therefore misguided. (Id. at 3.)

24

The remaining objections stated by plaintiff do not establish flaws with the magistrate

25

judge’s legal analysis or identify any factual allegations that the magistrate judge overlooked.

26

Accordingly,

27

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 21, 2021, (Doc. No. 20), are

28

adopted in full;
2

1

2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable

2
3

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

4

of closing the case, then to close this case, and terminate all other pending motions and

5

deadlines.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated:

January 6, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3