(PC) Lamon v. Mey ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, No. 2:20-cv-01474-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. MEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this 18 civil rights action seeking relief under 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 October 1, 2020, the magistrate judge filed two sets of findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections 22 to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF Nos. 14, 23 15.) On October 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed Objections to both sets of findings and 24 recommendations.1 (ECF No. 20.) 25 1 The magistrate judge also issued an Order directing service of the First Amended Complaint on the Defendants against whom the screening order found “potentially colorable 26 claims” had been asserted. (ECF No. 16.) In his Objections to Findings and Recommendations, 27 Plaintiff additionally objects to this order. (ECF No. 20 at 1.) Plaintiff appears to argue that, in only ordering service on certain Defendants identified in the screening order and not all of the 28 Defendants identified in the First Amended Complaint, the magistrate judge is circumventing the 1 The Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 2 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 3 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 4 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 5 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and 6 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 7 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 8 Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 9 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 10 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 11 judge’s analysis. 12 Plaintiff’s objection that the magistrate judge failed to accurately or carefully screen his 13 First Amended Complaint is not well-taken. To the contrary, the 13-page Findings and 14 Recommendations provided a detailed and appropriate analysis of Plaintiff’s allegations and 15 found multiple potentially cognizable claims. (See generally ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff’s remaining 16 claims are properly dismissed because they are based upon conclusory allegations which fail to 17 meet the threshold requirement of “giv[ing] the defendant fair notice of what the claim . . . is and 18 the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 19 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. 20 As to the recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 21 15), Plaintiff’s objections are again unavailing. The Findings and Recommendations 22 23 District Judge’s de novo review of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and improperly precluding Plaintiff from litigating claims which he contends are cognizable. (See ECF No. 20 at 24 1, 9–10.) Plaintiff’s argument appears to be premised upon a misapprehension of the law and is without merit. Had the Court declined to adopt any part of the Findings and Recommendations, 25 Plaintiff would be permitted to proceed on any additional claims deemed potentially cognizable by the Court. Such is not the case here, however, as the Court has determined the Findings and 26 Recommendations to be fully supported by the magistrate judge’s analysis and adopts them in 27 full. Accordingly, these objections are moot as well as unfounded. Further, to the extent these objections merely duplicate Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations to dismiss 28 certain claims (ECF No. 14), they are overruled for the reasons discussed herein. 1 appropriately characterize and recommend denial of Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief where 2 it is sought against individuals who are not parties to this action or pertains to potential safety 3 concerns that are no longer applicable because Plaintiff has transferred prison locations. (See 4 ECF No. 13.) Accordingly, these objections are overruled. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 1, 2020 (ECF Nos. 14, 15), are 7 adopted in full; 8 2. Plaintiff’s August 27, 2020 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 13) is 9 DENIED; and 10 3. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12) only 11 with respect to the claims that were expressly identified by the Findings and Recommendations to 12 be potentially colorable (see ECF No. 14 at 12). All remaining claims are DISMISSED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 DATED: November 6, 2020 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28