(PC) Jimenez v. Superior Court of California, County of Kings ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUDY JIMENEZ, No. 1:19-cv-01780-DAD-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ACTION COUNTY OF KINGS, et al., 15 (Doc. No. 15) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Rudy Jimenez is state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 15, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 22 complaint (“FAC”) and issued findings and recommendations recommending that the FAC be 23 dismissed without further leave to amend being granted. (Doc. No. 15.) The magistrate judge 24 found that plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to § 1983 are barred because he alleges that he is 25 unlawfully incarcerated and he requests declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and $75 million in 26 damages, but his underlying criminal conviction has not “been declared invalid by a state court or 27 a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge therefore 28 concluded that plaintiff’s claims as asserted in his FAC are barred by the Supreme Court’s 1 | decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Ud. at 2-3.) The magistrate judge 2 || recommended dismissing the FAC without granting further leave to amend, noting that plaintiff 3 | has previously been granted leave to amend and he has still failed to state a cognizable claim for 4 | relief. Ud. at 4.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 5 | notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (d.) 6 | On November 16, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. 7 | (Doc. No. 16.) 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 9 | court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 10 | including plaintiffs objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 11 | supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 In his objections, plaintiff merely reiterates the claims that he asserted in his FAC and 13 | states that certain individuals should be investigated. (Doc. No. 16 at 2-3.) Plaintiff does not 14 | meaningfully object to the magistrate judge’s findings that his claims in this action are barred by 15 || the decision in Heck. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 15, 2020 (Doc. No. 15) are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. This action is dismissed as barred by the decision in Heck; and 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 21 | IT IS SOORDERED. me □ Dated: _ December 2, 2020 a 4 A a anys 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28