(PC) Brown v. United States et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/13/2020 ADOPTING in full 15 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 6 , 8 plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's 14 request for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DEXTER BROWN, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:18-cv-3197 KJM KJN P v. ORDER UNITED STATES, 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 November 8, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 19 20 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. After receiving two extensions of 22 time, on February 12, 2020 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 25 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 On the same day he filed his objections, plaintiff filed a proposed second amended 2 complaint. Plaintiff previously amended his complaint as of right. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Plaintiff 3 may amend his complaint only “once as a matter of course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Plaintiff 4 did not seek leave to amend the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In any event, plaintiff again 5 names as defendants the United States and FBI agent Veltri; thus, the proposed amendment fails 6 to name individuals responsible for the alleged wrongful conditions of his confinement. As 7 plaintiff has been informed, “[p]laintiff has no constitutional right to an FBI investigation of 8 plaintiff’s claims.” (ECF No. 15 at 6.)1 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 8, 2019, are adopted in full; 11 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 6, 8) is denied; 12 3. Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 14) is denied; 13 4. This action is dismissed without leave to amend as frivolous and for failure to state a 14 claim upon which relief may be granted; and 15 5. This action is terminated. 16 DATED: September 13, 2020. 17 18 19 20 21 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On May 8, 2020, in Dexter Brown v. Ram, No. 20-cv-0154 KJN P (E.D. Cal.), an order the clerk of court mailed to plaintiff was returned as undeliverable, marked “deceased.” Id. A court may take judicial notice of court records. See, e.g., Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, the inmate locator website for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) no longer lists plaintiff as housed in CDCR custody. In light of plaintiff’s apparent death, it is impossible for him to prosecute this action. The undersigned has considered whether to appoint counsel to represent plaintiff’s estate, but finds there are no exceptional circumstances for doing so in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 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?