(PC) Escobar v. Gary ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN K. ESCOBAR, No. 1:19-cv-00321-DAD-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 C. GARY, et al., (Doc. No. 15) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Bryan K. Escobar is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 June 16, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 21 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and recommended that it be dismissed without further 22 leave to amend. (Doc. No. 15.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff (1) failed to 23 allege any facts that could plausibly state a claim against any of the individually named 24 defendants and (2) could not sue state agencies under the Eleventh Amendment. (Id. at 5–12.) 25 With respect to plaintiff’s allegations that he is entitled to an earlier release or a recalculation of 26 his sentence, the magistrate judge found that his claims in this regard are barred by the decision in 27 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994), and dismissed those claims without prejudice to 28 ///// WAS 26h GU VOYUYEVG EL □□□ SSA RAVI te PIR Oey PF vr’ 1 | the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (/d. at 7, 12-13.) On July 1, 2020, plaintiff 2 | filed his objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 16.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs 5 | objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 6 | record and by proper analysis. 7 It is difficult to decipher what plaintiff is arguing in his objections to the pending findings 8 | and recommendations. (See generally Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff asks the court to review and 9 | subpoena his California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation medical records and to 10 || “review [his] case for SSI Benefits,” and he notes his objections to “[his] credit being taken 11 | away.” (Ud. at 1.) However, plaintiff does not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s 12 | findings that his FAC fails to state a cognizable claim. Notably, the objections do not dispute that 13 | the FAC fails to allege any facts against any of the individually named defendants, or any facts 14 | supporting any of the various claims plaintiff appears to be asserting in this action. Lastly, 15 | plaintiff does not address the magistrate judge’s finding that his claim with respect to his sentence 16 | calculation is barred by Heck. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The June 16, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 15) are adopted in 19 full; 20 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim, without prejudice 21 to the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus; and 22 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ July 30, 2020 Yole A Lara 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28