(PC) Good v. Diaz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAVON GOOD, No. 2:19-cv-2453 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 RALPHA DIAZ, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. On June 4, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint as the court is required 19 to do under 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). Plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed with leave to 20 amend. Plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint. 21 Again, the court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 22 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 24 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 25 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 27 In his second amended complaint, plaintiff again alleges that he has been denied 28 consideration for parole. He appears to claim that he is entitled to early parole consideration MASS SAD UVM EIT PINOY INE MVOC IO ee Yh ev 1 | pursuant to Proposition 57 passed in 2016. However, plaintiff still fails to point to facts 2 | indicating that he qualifies for early parole consideration under Proposition 57. Furthermore, 3 | attached to plaintiffs second amended complaint is a document which indicates that plaintiff is 4 | eligible for parole and has either already had a parole hearing or will have one within the next 5 | year. ECF No. 19 at 11. Therefore, it appears that the early consideration provisions of 6 | Proposition 57 do not apply to plaintiff. 7 In light of the foregoing, plaintiff's second amended complaint must be dismissed for 8 | failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As granting leave to amend a third time 9 | appears futile, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed. 10 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 11 | assign a district court judge to this case. 12 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. Plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. 19) be dismissed for failure to state a 14 | claim upon which relief can be granted; and 15 2. This case be closed. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen after 18 | being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 19 | the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 20 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 21 | waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YlIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 22 | 1991). 23 | Dated: September 1, 2020 Ci ide f | fe 4 CAROLYN K DELANEY 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 | 1 7 good2453.frs 28