(PC) Jackson v. Khalib ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORNEL JACKSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-01567-ADA-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 14 KHALIB, et al., (ECF No. 14) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Cornel Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 20, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, except for its claims of retaliation against 22 the named Defendants Khalib, Quick, Alva, Villanueva, Lesage, Townsend, Cpl. Rivera, and 23 Officer P. Rivera, and the claim of an equal protection violation against named Defendant Garza. 24 (ECF No. 14.)1 The Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff 14 days within which to file any objections 25 to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 2-3.) On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed his 26 objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 15.) 27 1 The findings construed Plaintiff’s January 9, 2023, (ECF No. 12), filing to be a notice to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court as set forth in the second screening order issued December 21, 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including Plaintiff’s objections, 3 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. In his objections, Plaintiff argues that his conspiracy claim and the other named 5 Defendants subject to the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim must not be dismissed. 6 (ECF No. 15 at 4.) Plaintiff argues that he sufficiently alleges the elements of conspiracy, including 7 Defendants’ alleged pattern and practice to harass Plaintiff daily for almost a year. (Id. at 3.) 8 Plaintiff further argues that Defendants Mendoza and Guzman should not be dismissed with respect 9 to his equal protection claim because they had enforced an official custom to violate Plaintiff’s 10 equal protection rights. (Id. at 4.) More specifically, Plaintiff argues that Defendants Guzman and 11 Garza “worked hand in hand in depriving” Plaintiff of his equal protection. (Id. at 4-5.) 12 The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s objections. The Court reiterates that Plaintiff fails to 13 allege plausibly a violation of his equal protection rights against Defendants Mendoza and Guzman 14 because he fails to allege a causal connection between their actions and the denial of his equal 15 protection rights. (ECF No. 11 at 11.) Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to allege 16 with specificity that Defendants had engaged in a conspiracy. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 17 363 F.3d 916, 929 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 20, 2023, (ECF No. 14), are 3 ADOPTED in full; 4 2. The claims in Plaintiff's complaint are DISMISSED, except for claims of retaliation 5 against the named Defendants Khalib, Quick, Alva, Villanueva, Lesage, Townsend, 6 Cpl. Rivera, and Officer P. Rivera, and the claim of an equal protection violation against 7 named Defendant Garza, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 8 3. Defendants Guzman and Mendoza are DISMISSED from this action; and 9 4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 10 11 12 | TIS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: _ March 20, 2023 4 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28