(PC) Hand v. Young ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEHU HAND, No. 1:20-cv-00784-NONE-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 YOUNG, et al., (Doc. No. 22) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jehu Hand is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 19 Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 29, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened the first amended complaint and 22 issued findings and recommendations recommending that the complaint be dismissed without 23 leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 22.) The deadline to file objections has 24 passed, and plaintiff has failed to file objections to the pending findings and recommendations or 25 otherwise communicate with the court regarding this action. 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, the court concludes that the 28 ///// 1 | magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 2 |) analysis.! 3 Accordingly, 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 29, 2021 (Doc. No. 22), are adopted in 5 full; 6 2. This action is dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim; and 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of 8 closing the case and then to close this case. 9 | IT IS SO ORDERED. am 10 li fh 5 Dated: _ November 9, 2021 at Oa 2 eee 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ' The findings and recommendations conclude generally that the Ninth Circuit “has .. . refused to extend a Bivens remedy to a claim under the First Amendment.” (Doc. No. 22 at 8.) The 23 | undersigned interprets this conclusion narrowly to extend only to the context presented in this case, namely a prisoner raising a First Amendment retaliation claim. Although the Ninth Circuit 24 | has recognized a Bivens action asserting a First Amendment claim in other contexts, see Boule v. Egbert, 998 F.3d 370, 389-92 (9th Cir. 2021) (extending Bivens to cover a business owner’s First 25 Amendment-retaliation claim brought against United States Border Patrol agent after finding 26 | other remedies to be unavailable), it has not done so with regard to retaliation claims brought by prisoners, see Buenrostro v. Fajardo, 770 F. App’x 807, 808 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding that a 27 || federal prisoner had other available remedies with respect to his First Amendment-retaliation claim). Citation to the unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion in Buenrostro is appropriate pursuant to 28 | Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3(b).