Lane v. Ali et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/29/2020 ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations as to plaintiff's claim alleging deprivation of personal property, GRANTING 23 Motion to Dismiss as to plaintiff's claim that defendant Johnson violated his right to due process when he allegedly stole plaintiff's persona property, and DENYING 23 Motion to Dismiss in all other respects. This action is DISMISSED. CASE CLOSED. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RODNEY ALEXANDER LANE, JR.,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:18-cv-1564 KJM KJN P

v.

ORDER

F. ALI, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

16
17

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

18

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 19, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

19
20

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

21

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed

22

objections to the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 38, and defendant R. Johnson has filed

23

a response, ECF No. 39.
The magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted as to

24
25

plaintiff’s claim alleging deprivation of personal property. The magistrate judge also found that

26

plaintiff raised a claim for deprivation of the right to self-representation. The magistrate judge

27

recommended that this second claim be dismissed pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

28

(1994).
1

1

In his objections, plaintiff clarifies that he is not raising a claim alleging deprivation of his

2

right to self-representation. Plaintiff alleges that he is only challenging the deprivation of his

3

personal property. Accordingly, the undersigned need only consider the section of the findings

4

and recommendations addressing plaintiff’s claim alleging deprivation of personal property.

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

6

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the

7

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

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 19, 2020, are adopted as to

10
11

plaintiff’s claim alleging deprivation of personal property;
2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) is granted as to plaintiff’s claim that

12

defendant Johnson violated his right to due process when he allegedly stole plaintiff’s personal

13

property;

14

3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied in all other respects; and

15

4. This action is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

16

DATED: September 29, 2020.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2