Williams v. The People of the State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFTON WILLIAMS, JR, No. 1:21-cv-01810-DAD-SAB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 PATRICK HOGAN, et al., THIS ACTION 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 10) 16 17 Plaintiff Clifton Williams, Jr, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil 18 action on December 27, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) 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 April 15, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s operative second 21 amended complaint, in which plaintiff alleges a malicious prosecution claim against defendant 22 Patrick Hogan (a deputy district attorney in Modesto) and defendant Katherine Blum (an officer 23 with the Modesto Police Department), and found that plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable 24 claim for relief. (Doc. No. 10.) In particular, the magistrate judge took judicial notice of the state 25 court records in the plaintiff’s criminal prosecution, which reflected that those proceedings are 26 ongoing, and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed 27 on the ground that plaintiff’s claims are barred under the Younger abstention doctrine. (Id. at 3– 28 5) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). In addition, the magistrate judge found that 1 | plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable malicious prosecution claim because “the relevant state 2 || criminal action against plaintiff has not been terminated in a manner favorable to the plaintiff, and 3 | has not shown that the criminal prosecution has ended without a conviction”—required elements 4 | for such aclaim. (/d. at 5-6.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on 5 | plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 6 || days after service. Ud. at 7.) On April 25, 2022, plaintiff timely filed objections to the pending 7 | findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 11.) 8 In his objections, plaintiff does not meaningfully object to the findings and 9 || recommendations or to the fact that his criminal proceedings in state court remain pending. 10 | Rather, plaintiff asserts that his “ongoing criminal case should have nothing to do with” his 11 | allegations of civil rights violations in this case. (Doc. No. 11 at 3.) However, as explained in the 12 | pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff is mistaken in his assertion. Accordingly, 13 | plaintiffs objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 14 || recommendations. 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this court has conducted a 16 | de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs 17 || objections, the court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 18 || and by proper analysis. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 15, 2022 (Doc. No. 10) are 21 adopted in full; 22 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim for 23 relief; and 24 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 25 | ITIS SO ORDERED. ee *6 Dated: _ August 11, 2022 al, A 4 7 ae 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28