(PC) Lazier v. Coalinga State Hospital, et al.

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Claim signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/6/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 THEODORE R. LAZIER, 7 8 9 10 CASE NO. 1:21-cv-01362-AWI-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Defendants. (Doc. No. 16) 11 12 13 Plaintiff Theodore R. Lazier is a former civil detainee and current Florida state prisoner 14 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 15 matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 16 Eastern District of California Local Rule 302. 17 On November 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened the first-amended 18 complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed 19 based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. No. 20 16. Plaintiff was directed to file objections within fourteen days. Id. at 1, 7. On November 22, 21 2021, in lieu of filing objections, Plaintiff lodged a second-amended complaint. Doc. No. 17. The 22 deadline for Plaintiff to file his objections has expired, and Plaintiff has not otherwise 23 communicated with the Court. 24 Although Plaintiff was not granted further leave to amend, the Court has reviewed the 25 lodged second-amended complaint. As in his first-amended complaint, Plaintiff’s lodged second26 amended complaint asserts a due process claim related to a “confiscation” of his property when he 27 was transferred to a Florida state prison and an access to courts claim under the First Amendment 28 related to a delay in receiving his legal property. The court finds that the amended pleading fails 1 to cure the deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 3 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the lodged 4 second-amended complaint, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 5 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 7 ORDER 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. 10 11 15, 2021, are ADOPTED in full; 2. 12 13 The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) that were issued on November This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: January 6, 2022 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 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?