(PC) Humes v. Sacramento County ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JON HUMES, No. 2:18-cv-428-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county jail inmate when he filed this action, and now a state prisoner 18 proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 19 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 20 and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 30, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the 24 findings and recommendations. As the Magistrate Judge notes, plaintiff provides no indication in 25 his amended complaint whether he is suing Becerra in his personal or official capacity, stating 26 only that “[it is] the CA court’s policy to deprive people of thier [sic] right to due process.” ECF 27 No. 13 at 3. And the Magistrate Judge correctly observes, “Plaintiff offers no allegation that 28 Becerra personally wronged him in any way or, indeed, had any personal involvement whatsoever 1 in the acts he complains of.” ECF No. 17 at 4 n.4. In his objections, plaintiff clarifies that he 2 withdraws any claim based on personal capacity. ECF No. 18 at 1. 3 Moreover, concurrently with his objections plaintiff filed a proposed second amended 4 complaint. ECF No. 19 (mistakenly titled and docketed as “first” amended complaint). This 5 proposed amended complaint fails to cure the deficiencies identified in the magistrate judge’s 6 July 30, 2019 findings and recommendations; its filing does not undermine the conclusion that the 7 operative amended complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 9 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 10 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.1 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2019, are adopted in full; 13 2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure 14 to state a cognizable claim; and 15 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 16 DATED: September 30, 2019. 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 Although the Magistrate Judge relies on Bell v. Cockrell, 310 F.3d 330, 334 (5th Cir. 2002) for 23 the proposition the ADA “neither addresses the imposition of criminal penalties, nor . . . suggest[s] that mentally disabled Americans should be treated differently from other Americans 24 who commit crimes,” the court is not so certain ADA claims regarding disability accommodation related to imposition of criminal penalties are entirely foreclosed, at least in the Ninth Circuit. 25 See, e.g., Kral v. King Cty., No. C10-1360-MAT, 2012 WL 726901, at *15 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 6, 26 2012) (denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment where plaintiff alleged ADA violation for failure to provide certain accommodations that would trigger eligibility for electronic home 27 monitoring as a component of his criminal sentence). Nonetheless, even if plaintiff prevailed on his ADA claim, doing so would render his underlying conviction invalid; thus, Heck would still 28 apply and bar the claim.