(PC) Brown v. Newsom ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEXTER BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-00948 MCE KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 9, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 With respect to the Governor, the Eleventh Amendment “does not . . . bar actions for 25 prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against state officers in their official capacities for 26 their alleged violations of federal law.” Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown, 674 27 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). However, “[t]he individual state official sued 28 must have some connection with the enforcement of the act. . . . [and] that connection must be 1 || fairly direct; a generalized duty to enforce state law or general supervisory power over the 2 || persons responsible for enforcing the challenged provision will not subject an official to suit.” Id. 3 | (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Governor Newsom’s general supervisory 4 | powers do not extend to criminal investigations requested by individual state prisoners. Plaintiff 5 | claims he may amend his pleading to raise a supplemental state law claim based on such 6 | allegations. However, despite plaintiff's objections, the undersigned finds no cognizable § 1983 7 | claim against the Governor and his staff person “Adrian,” and therefore declines to exercise 8 || supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims. The dismissal of this action is 9 | without prejudice to plaintiff pursuing such claims in state court. 10 Similarly, plaintiffs claim of imminent danger are based on allegations too attenuated 11 | from plaintiffs allegations against the named defendants. Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293 12 | (2nd Cir. 2009). Plaintiff's allegations that defendants Newsom and Adrian failed to act on 13 | plaintiff's reports of assaults in state prison took place after the incidents, such defendants were 14 | not involved in the alleged incidents, and therefore such omissions are not fairly traceable to the 15 | incidents alleged. Plaintiff cannot rectify such deficiencies by amendment. 16 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 17 || court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court 18 | finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 9, 2019, are adopted in full; 21 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied; and 22 3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of 23 || this order. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: February 4, 2020 Co 26 tS A (ZENE 27 UNITED STATES LES 28