(PC) White v. Krantz ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORY JAMES WHITE, 1:20-cv-00892-ADA-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL 13 vs. (ECF No. 23.) 14 KRANTZ, et al., ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE, 15 Defendants. WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 16 (ECF No. 16.) 17 ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE 18 19 20 21 22 Cory James White (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 23 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 24 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 On November 21, 2022, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 26 this case be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 27 granted under § 1983. (ECF No. 23.) On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the 28 findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 24.) On December 29, 2022, the Court granted 1 Plaintiff leave to file additional objections. (ECF No. 25.) On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed 2 additional objections. (ECF No. 26.) 3 In Plaintiff’s objections, Plaintiff asks the court to reconsider the magistrate judge’s 4 recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. (ECF No. 26 at 2-3). 5 Plaintiff seeks to dismiss claims against Defendants Paul Gonzales, Randy Lindsey, and Maurice 6 Howard. In addition, Plaintiff seems to take issue with the assigned magistrate judge’s findings 7 and recommendations stating that Defendant Ron Krantz’s actions “were not rationally related 8 to legitimate penological interests.” (ECF No. 24 at 13). Plaintiff argues that he has validity stated 9 a claim under the First Amendment free exercise clause, applying the factors laid out by the 10 Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), in which the court considered the 11 reasonableness of a prison regulation. (ECF No. 26 at 5-6). However, this does not change the 12 findings and recommendations. As noted in the findings and recommendations’ review of 13 Plaintiff’s appeal log, Defendant Krant’s denying Plaintiff kosher meals was “not malicious . . . 14 but . . . because of a program violation.” (ECF No. 26 at 14). “‘Penological interests are interests 15 that relate to the treatment (including punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.) of persons 16 convicted of crimes.’” (Id. quoting (Bull v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964, 996 17 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted)). 18 In addition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 19 However, this was not a ground under which the assigned magistrate judge found to dismiss 20 Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, this argument in unpersuasive. 21 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 22 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 23 including Plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 24 by the record and proper analysis. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on November 27 21, 2022, are adopted in full; 28 ee enn eee nn nn nnn en EI I IE IEE EE 1 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a 2 claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; and 3 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 4 5 6 IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: _ February 14, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28