(PC) Johnson v. Unknown FBI Agents

Filing 25

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/22/24 ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations in full, DISMISSING Plaintiff's fist ameneded complaint, without leave to amend, and DENYING AS MOOT 21 Motion for Injunctive Relief and 24 Motion for Extension of Time. CASE CLOSED. (Licea Chavez, V)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KEVIN B. JOHNSON,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:23-cv-02622-DAD-SCR

Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN FBI AGENTS,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
THIS ACTION
(Doc. No. 17, 21, 24)

15
16

Plaintiff Kevin B. Johnson is a former inmate at the Yolo County Monroe Detention

17

Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to

18

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and the

19

Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On September 9, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended

22

complaint (“FAC”) and recommended that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for

23

failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 17 at 3–4.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the

24

FAC had not made individualized allegations about any of the unknown defendant FBI agents

25

(“Doe defendants”). (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge further found that plaintiff had not properly

26

alleged the FTCA’s jurisdictional requirement that he had exhausted all administrative remedies

27

with an appropriate federal agency. (Id. at 3–4.) The pending findings and recommendations

28

were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within
1

1

twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 5.) On September 25, 2024, plaintiff filed timely

2

objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 18.)

3

Plaintiff’s objections are difficult to decipher but appear to baselessly claim that the

4

Federal Bureau of Investigation is involved in multiple criminal enterprises. (Doc. No. 18 at 3–

5

4.) However, this claim does not meaningfully address the deficiencies in his pending complaint

6

identified by the magistrate judge. In particular, plaintiff does not address the FAC’s lack of

7

individualized allegations about any of the Doe defendants or his failure to exhaust his

8

administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. See Fishman v. Williams, No. 14-cv-04823-MWF-

9

JC, 2016 WL 11484591, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (“[S]ince plaintiff has not made

10

individualized allegations about any of the Doe defendants, such unidentifiable defendants may

11

be dismissed from the First Amended Complaint.”); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113

12

(1993) (“The FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted

13

their administrative remedies.”). Accordingly, the pending complaint must be dismissed because

14

it fails to state a claim.

15

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

16

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

17

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

18

Accordingly,

19

1.

20

The findings and recommendations issued on September 9, 2024 (Doc. No. 17) are
adopted in full;

21

2.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed, without leave to amend;

22

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and motion for an extension of time are

23

denied as moot; and

24

4.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated:

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

November 22, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2