Beltran v. Superior Court of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEBASTIAN P. BELTRAN, No. 1:19-cv-1436-DAD-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 13 AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 v. (Doc. No. 7) 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Sebastian P. Beltran is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed under to 20 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On May 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations 23 recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a 24 claim and failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc No. 7.) Plaintiff 25 was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within 26 fourteen days. (Id.) On July 7, 2020, plaintiff untimely filed a document which appears to be a 27 proposed Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 10.) The court construes this document as 28 plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's 3 | objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 | by proper analysis. Plaintiff's amended complaint, construed as objections to the findings and 5 || recommendations, does not address the numerous pleading failures identified by the magistrate 6 || judge, which include violations of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20; the fact that 7 | plaintiffs efforts to challenge an underlying state court criminal conviction are not cognizable in 8 | acivil rights action such as this filed in federal court; and the related fact that claims for damages 9 | that would imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence are barred by the decision in Heck v. 10 | Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). 11 Accordingly, 12 1. The findings and recommendations entered on May 7, 2020 (Doc. No. 7) are adopted 13 in full; 14 2. This case is dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable 15 claim and failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 16 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of 17 closing the case and then to close this case. 18 | IT IS SO ORDERED. sm Dated: _ December 11, 2020 L Ti yA 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28