(PC) Beaton v. State of California, CDCR ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL NIVARD BEATON, No. 1:19-cv-01072-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR et al., ACTION 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 11) 16 17 Plaintiff Paul Nivard Beaton is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 29, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 21 complaint (“FAC”) and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be 22 dismissed due to plaintiff’s lack of standing and failure to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 23 11.) In particular, the magistrate judge found that, despite the ample guidance provided in the 24 court’s screening order of plaintiff’s original complaint, plaintiff again failed in his FAC to allege 25 facts showing that he suffered an injury in fact. (Id. at 3–4.) The magistrate judge also found that 26 the FAC improperly named “all CDCR officials at VSP [Valley State Prison]” as defendants, and 27 that it failed to state a cognizable claim based on the alleged denial of plaintiff’s administrative 28 grievances. (Id. at 4) (quoting Doc. No. 9 at 1). Given plaintiff’s repeated failure to allege facts 1 showing that he had suffered an injury in fact and his prior opportunity to amend, the magistrate 2 judge found that further amendment would be futile and recommended dismissal of this action 3 with prejudice. (Id. at 4–5.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff 4 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of 5 service. (Id. at 5.) On June 11, 2020, plaintiff timely filed objections to the pending findings and 6 recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.) 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 8 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 9 objections, the court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 10 and by proper analysis. 11 In his objections, plaintiff does not address the analysis set forth in the pending findings 12 and recommendations or proffer allegations that he would include in a second amended 13 complaint, if he were granted further leave to amend. Instead, plaintiff objects to the magistrate 14 judge’s conclusion that “[a]t most, Plaintiff shows that the VSP classification committee made a 15 mistake by listing him as a permanent resident instead of as a citizen” and that “[p]laintiff does 16 not allege that he suffered any injury that is concrete and actual or imminent as a result of the 17 mistake” (Doc. No. 11 at 4), because according to plaintiff, the three named correctional officers 18 “did all of these things on purpose” (Doc. No. 12 at 1). 19 In his objections, plaintiff also clarified that he is only bringing this action against the 20 three named defendants, not “all CDCR officials at VSP” as the magistrate judge had interpreted 21 his FAC. (Id. at 2.) However, even if the court assumes that the three correctional officer 22 defendants “were trying to [get] ICE [to] deport [plaintiff] to Cuba” as plaintiff now contends (Id. 23 at 5), and incorrectly wrote that plaintiff is a permanent resident on a classification chrono to 24 further that purpose, the undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that plaintiff’s 25 allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff’s contention is speculative and 26 not based on factual allegations. Moreover, as the magistrate judge correctly found, those 27 allegations fail to show that plaintiff suffered an injury that is actual or imminent and not 28 conjectural or hypothetical, which is necessary to satisfy standing requirements. (See Doc. No. 4:40 UV EONAR VRP MVOC to POC Vie te POY VV VI 1 | 11 at 4) (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 2 | (2000)). In addition, although plaintiff cites the decision in Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 3 | 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) in his objections for the proposition that prison officials’ denials of his 4 | administrative grievances constitute due process violations (id. at 3-4), the court in Rhodes was 5 || stating the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim. That decision does not provide for a 6 | standalone constitutional claim based on denials of inmate administrative grievances. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 29, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) are 9 adopted in full; 10 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim for 11 relief and plaintiff's lack of standing; and 12 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 13 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si □ Dated: _ July 21, 2020 J aL Al 5 7 a 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28