(PC) Simmons v. State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, No. 2:18-cv-01489 MCE CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 25, 2019, plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was dismissed with 19 leave to amend. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is now before 20 the court for screening. (ECF No. 26.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 21 Having reviewed the SAC, the undersigned concludes that it fails to cure the defects of the 22 original complaint as discussed in the March 25, 2019 screening order, or state a cognizable claim 23 against any defendant. Because it appears that another round of amendment would be futile, the 24 undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a 25 claim upon which relief can be granted. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with 27 prejudice and this case closed. 28 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 1 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 2 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 3 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 4 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 5 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 6 | Cir. 1991). 7 | Dated: March 26, 2020 Ci dp. f | fe 8 CAROLYN K. DELANEY 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 | 2/simmons1489.sac 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28