(PC) Winston v. United States ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEANTHONY T. WINSTON, No. 1:23-cv-01086-JLT-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (Doc. 11) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant 18 to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotic Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 19 On August 24, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 20 recommending that the action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief under 21 Bivens. (Doc. 11.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 22 notice that objections were due within fourteen days. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. (Doc. 16.) In the meanwhile, plaintiff filed a request for 24 declaratory judgment (Doc. 13), a motion for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining 25 order and a second request for declaratory judgment. (Docs. 14, 15.) 26 In his objections, though recognizing the limited nature of Bivens (Doc. 16), fails to 27 meaningfully address why Bivens should be extended to the factual situation raised in his 28 complaint. Simply calling his First Amendment claim for deprivation of his property “cruel and 1 | unusual punishment,” fails to appreciate that the United States Supreme Court has called the act 2 | of recognizing a new Bivens action to “a disfavored judicial activity.” Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 3 | 482, 491 (2022), quoting Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 123 (2017). Equating the officer’s 4 | actions in failing to ensure Plaintiff's personal property was not lost with infliction of cruel and 5 | unusual punishment is insufficient to demonstrate that Bivens should be extended to this factual 6 | context. 7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this 8 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the Court finds 9 | the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus,the 10 | Court ORDERS: 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 24, 2023 (Doc. 11), are 12 ADOPTED IN FULL. 13 2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. 14 3, All pending motions (Docs. 10, 13, 14, 15) are denied as moot. 15 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g | Dated: _ October 16, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28