(PC) Hearns v. Cisnero ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLARENCE L. HEARNS, Case No.: 1:22-cv-1033 JLT CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 14 CISNERO, et al., COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 31) 16 17 Clarence L. Hearns seeks to hold the defendants—including Kathleen Allison, Secretary 18 of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Warden Teresa Cisneros, 19 Associate Warden R. Morales and Captain C. Frazier— liable for civil rights violations pursuant 20 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends the defendants violated his civil rights by taking his JPay 21 tablet after the CDCR ended the pilot JPay program. (See generally Doc. 29.) This matter was 22 referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 The assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state a claim and leave to amend 24 would be futile. (Doc. 31 at 8-11.) The magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed 25 without leave to amend. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff filed objections, maintaining the defendants 26 violated his rights and the magistrate judge erred by not directing service of the FAC upon the 27 defendants. (Doc. 34.) However, Plaintiff does not identify any facts sufficient to support his claim for a violation of his civil rights. As the magistrate judge determined, Plaintiff does not 1 | have a constitutional right to possess a JPay tablet. See, e.g., Atencio v. Allison, 2021 WL 2 | 2982917, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2021) (“Plaintiff cannot allege a fundamental right to a 3 | particular type of electronic device”) adopted by 2021 WL 4803970 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021); 4 | Cerniglia v. Price, 2017 WL 4865452, at *2-4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2021) (“No Court has found 5 | that prisoners have a constitutional right to possess personal computers or items that are similar to 6 | personal computers...”). Consequently, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for a violation 7 | of his civil rights stemming from the CDCR’s termination of the JPay pilot program and its policy 8 | prohibiting him from retaining the JPay tablet. Because leave to amend is futile, dismissal is 9 | appropriate, and the Court will not order service upon the defendants. 10 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 11 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes the 12 | Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, 13 | the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 21, 2023 (Doc. 31) are 15 ADOPTED in full. 16 2. This action is DISMISSED for Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief 17 can be granted. 18 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 3, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28