(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)

Download PDF
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

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?