(PC) Evans v. Sherman ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD A. EVANS, No. 1:19-cv-00226-DAD-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 S. SHERMAN, et al., (Doc. No. 50) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Richard A. Evans is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 21, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened the first amended complaint 21 and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to 22 plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 50.) Those 23 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 24 thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 7.) Following the granting 25 of an extension of time, plaintiff timely filed objections on June 17, 2020. (Doc. No. 57.) 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 27 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 28 ///// 1 objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are 2 supported by the record and proper analysis. 3 In his objections, plaintiff primarily argues that he understands the linkage requirement 4 and wishes to file a second amended complaint to correctly link the alleged constitutional 5 violations to the named defendants in this case. (Doc. No. 57 at 1.) However, plaintiff was 6 provided with the relevant pleading and legal standards regarding linkage and his First 7 Amendment access to courts and retaliation claims when the magistrate judge screened his 8 original complaint. (See Doc. No. 15.) Nonetheless, plaintiff’s first amended complaint again 9 failed to include allegations linking any of the named defendants to the alleged denial of 10 plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Furthermore, plaintiff does not now assert that he has additional 11 facts to allege in order to link the named defendants to any cognizable claim he might bring. 12 Rather, plaintiff’s objections appear to set forth substantive allegations regarding the failure 13 certain prison staff members to provide plaintiff copies for the purposes of pursuing his ongoing 14 administrative grievances and litigation. (See Doc. No. 57 at 1.) However, as the magistrate 15 judge correctly noted in the pending findings and recommendations, “[p]laintiff cannot pursue 16 any claims against prison staff based solely on the processing and review of his inmate appeals” 17 because he “does not have a constitutionally protected right to have his appeals accepted or 18 processed.” (Doc. No. 50 at 6); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). 19 Because plaintiff was provided the applicable legal standards and an opportunity to cure 20 the deficiencies found in his complaint but failed to do so, the undersigned finds that the 21 magistrate judge correctly concluded that the granting of further leave to amend would be futile 22 and is not warranted in this case. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 50) are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim; 5 and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 | ORDERED. a " 8 Li. wh F Dated: _ January 13, 2021 Sea 1" S098 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28