(PC) Moultrie v. Haynes ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE LAFON MOULTRIE, Case No. 1:18-cv-01555-LJO-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 HAYNES, et al., (Doc. 14) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Andre Lafon Moultrie is an inmate in county jail proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This matter was referred to a 19 United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 19, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations to dismiss this action because Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief can 22 be granted. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff filed objections on December 2, 2019. (Doc. 15.) In his objections, 23 Plaintiff states that he misunderstood the requirements for his complaint, and he requests further 24 opportunity to amend. (Id.). Plaintiff does not address the substance of the findings, which 25 provide that Plaintiff’s factual allegations regarding an assault by other inmates do not show that 26 jail guards were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety, or that the guards retaliated against 27 Plaintiff for any engagement in protected activity. (See Doc. 14 at 4-6.) The magistrate judge stated that Plaintiff’s claims may show that Defendants were negligent under state law, (see id. at 1 5.); however, mere negligence is not actionable here. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 2 (1994). 3 The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s assertion that he misunderstood the legal pleading 4 requirements, particularly given his pro se status. However, Plaintiff alleges similar facts in four 5 separate complaints. (See Docs. 1, 6, 11, 13). Plaintiff fails to state a claim not because he omits 6 proper legal terminology, but because the facts he alleges do not rise to the level of constitutional 7 violations or violations of other federal law. Because Plaintiff has received two prior 8 opportunities to amend, the Court finds that further opportunity would be futile. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has 10 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds 11 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 19, 2019, (Doc. 14) are 14 ADOPTED in full; 15 2. This action is DISMISSED; and, 16 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: December 6, 2019 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27