(PC) Johnston v. CDCR Health Care ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES E. JOHNSTON, No. 1:21-cv-01322-JLT-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 13 v. DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 14 CDCR HEALTH CARE, et al., CLAIM 15 Defendants. (Doc. 14) 16 17 Charles E. Johnston is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 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 December 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened the first amended 21 complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed 22 based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 23 14.) Plaintiff was directed to file objections within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) On December 29, 24 2021, in lieu of filing objections, Plaintiff lodged a second amended complaint. (Doc. 15.) The 25 deadline for Plaintiff to file his objections has expired, and Plaintiff has not otherwise 26 communicated with the court. 27 Plaintiff’s lodged second amended complaint reasserts his claims using nearly identical 28 language as the first amended complaint. (Compare Doc. 13, pp. 5–7 with Doc. 15, pp. 3, 29, 1 62.) In an apparent attempt to address the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to 2 dismiss this action for failure to state a claim, Plaintiff has included with his second amended 3 complaint more than 70 pages of exhibits, unincorporated by reference and unexplained by any 4 allegations. 5 While “much liberality is allowed in construing pro se complaints, a pro se litigant cannot 6 simply dump a stack of exhibits on the court and expect the court to sift through them to 7 determine if some nugget is buried somewhere in that mountain of papers, waiting to be 8 unearthed and refined into a cognizable claim.” Samtani v. City of Laredo, 274 F. Supp. 3d 695, 9 698 (S.D. Tex. 2017). “The Court will not comb through attached exhibits seeking to determine 10 whether a claim possibly could have been stated where the pleading itself does not state a claim. 11 In short, [Plaintiff] must state a claim, not merely attach exhibits.” Stewart v. Nevada, No. 2:09- 12 CV-01063-PMP-GWF, 2011 WL 588485, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 9, 2011). 13 Although Plaintiff was not granted further leave to amend, the court has reviewed the 14 lodged second amended complaint. However, because Plaintiff has merely repeated the same 15 factual allegations and attached unexplained exhibits to the same, the court finds that it again fails 16 to cure the deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. 17 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 18 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the lodged 19 second amended complaint, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and 20 recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 22 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 15, 2021, (Doc. 14), are adopted 23 in full; 24 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which 25 relief may be granted; and 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 20, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28