Adams v. People of the State of California

Filing 18

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/31/2017 ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations in full, except as provided in this order. The complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 60 days. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CURTIS EARNEST ADAMS, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:16-CV-0569-TLN-CMK P Plaintiff, v. ORDER PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District 20 of California local rules. 21 On February 3, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein, 22 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 23 within a specified time. Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Reconsider Liberally Construe Pleadings.” 24 (ECF No. 17.) The Court construes this filing as objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 These objections were timely filed. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this 27 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 28 Court finds that the finding and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 1 1 2 analysis to the extent they conclude Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Magistrate Judge further concluded it did not appear possible that the deficiencies 3 identified in the findings and recommendations can be cured by amending the complaint. 4 However, Plaintiff’s objections identify the persons he intends to name as defendants if given the 5 opportunity amend and suggest he might be able to cure these deficiencies. Therefore, the Court 6 grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1130– 7 31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. 10 The findings and recommendations filed February 3, 2017, are adopted in full, except as provided in this Order; 11 2. The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim; 12 3. All pending motions (ECF Nos. 10 and 17) are denied as moot; and 13 4. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 60 days. 14 15 Dated: March 31, 2017 16 17 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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?