Yegorov v. Government USA
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 8/7/2017 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations.(Washington, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:17-cv-1111 JAM GGH
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is appearing in this action based, apparently on 28 U.S.C. section 1983. On June
5, 2017 this court entered an Order dismissing plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1, without
prejudice for failure to adhere to the pleading rules in the federal district courts. ECF No. 3. In
that Order the court laid out the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 which calls for
a simple, concise and direct set of allegations to support federal jurisdiction for this claim and
directed that he file an Amended Complaint within 45 days of the issuance of the Order. Plaintiff
filed his First Amended Complaint on July 21, 2017, but failed to cure the deficiencies found in
the original Complaint.
Plaintiff does lay out a number of personal injuries to both him and to his mother. He
mentions that two of his relatives, Audrey and Katy Yegorov were “kidnapped” from their
apartment and elementary school, ECF No. 4 at 2. He does not, however, name any individual
person who participated in the act complained of. Something was apparently done to his mother,
or perhaps his wife – Ms. Yegerov – involving an illegal arrest of an unnamed person. Id. at 3.
As a result Mr. claims to have a damaged nervous system, which causes him pain in his legs ,
neck, and hands among other things. Id. at 4.
Unfortunately, plaintiff appears unable to identify any individual who allegedly visited
these injuries on him and his loved ones. As noted in the court’s Order, ECF 3 at 3:16-4:1, unless
plaintiff is able to state with specificity who injured him, when they injured him, what positions
they hold that make them state actors amenable to suit under section 1983 (or Bivens), he fails to
state a claim even under the less stringent standard of pleading imposed on pro se litigants.
Haines v. Kerner, 404, U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The undersigned sees no hope that allowing another
amendment will cure these deficiencies.
In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
DATED: August 7, 2017
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?