(PC) Aleem v. Covello ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FAROOQ ABDUL ALEEM, No. 2:20-cv-0629 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 PATRICK COVELLO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil action against employees of 18 Mule Creek State Prison. On April 27, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint as 19 the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). Plaintiff’s amended complaint was 20 dismissed with leave to amend. In response to that order, plaintiff has filed a second and third 21 amended complaint. Good cause appearing, the court grants plaintiff leave to file a third 22 amended complaint which the court will now screen that pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915A(a). 24 In his third amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Roderick, a Correctional 25 Counselor at Mule Creek State Prison, provided another inmate with financial information, 26 specifically “trust information,” relating to plaintiff. While plaintiff alleges this was done with 27 malice, these facts alone do not amount to a violation of federal law. Plaintiff fails to point to any 28 ///// 1 | additional facts suggesting defendant Roderick’s conduct led to a violation of plaintiff's federal 2 | rights. 3 Plaintiff also alleges he was retaliated against for pursuing administrative remedies against 4 | defendant Roderick. However, plaintiff fails to identify any retaliating party. 5 Accordingly, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under federal 6 | law in his third amended complaint. On two occasions, the court has provided plaintiff with 7 | guidance as to the deficiencies in his pleadings and granted plaintiff leave to amend. Despite this, 8 | plaintiff has made no progress toward stating a claim upon which could be granted under federal 9 | law. 10 As plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under federal law, 11 the court does not have jurisdiction, 28 U.SC. § 1330, et seq., and this case should be closed. 12 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to file a third amended complaint is granted; and 14 2. Plaintiff's second amended complaint is dismissed. 15 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 16 1. Plaintiffs third amended complaint be dismissed; and 17 2. This case be closed. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen after 20 | being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 21 || the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 22 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 23 || waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 24 | 1991). 25 | Dated: November 25, 2020 Ph Pe > Fee Kk. Aas 26 CAROLYN K DELANEY 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 | 1 /alee0629.frs