(PC) Brown v. United States et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:18-cv-3197 KJM KJN P
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
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
were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings
and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. After receiving two extensions of
time, on February 12, 2020 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the
findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
On the same day he filed his objections, plaintiff filed a proposed second amended
complaint. Plaintiff previously amended his complaint as of right. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Plaintiff
may amend his complaint only “once as a matter of course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Plaintiff
did not seek leave to amend the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In any event, plaintiff again
names as defendants the United States and FBI agent Veltri; thus, the proposed amendment fails
to name individuals responsible for the alleged wrongful conditions of his confinement. As
plaintiff has been informed, “[p]laintiff has no constitutional right to an FBI investigation of
plaintiff’s claims.” (ECF No. 15 at 6.)1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed November 8, 2019, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 6, 8) is denied;
3. Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 14) is denied;
4. This action is dismissed without leave to amend as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted; and
5. This action is terminated.
DATED: September 13, 2020.
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).
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?