(PS) Crocker v. El Dorado County Superior Court ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN DAVID CROCKER, No. 2:22-cv-00499-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 14 EL DORADO COUNTY SUPERIOR MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY COURT, SOUTH LAKE TAHOE RESTRAINING ORDER, AND DISMISSING 15 DIVISION, et al., THIS ACTION 16 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 4, 6) 17 18 Plaintiff Benjamin David Crocker, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this 19 civil action on March 17, 2022, in which plaintiff appears to be challenging challenge his 20 December 2021 arrest and subsequent criminal prosecution in state court. (Doc. No. 1.) This 21 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 22 Local Rule 302. 23 On July 20, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 24 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4) be denied 25 and that this action be dismissed because plaintiff’s underlying state criminal proceedings are still 26 pending. (Doc. No. 6 at 3–5.) Thus, the magistrate judge concluded that application of the 27 Younger abstention doctrine requires dismissal of this action without prejudice. (Id. at 4, n.3) 28 (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). Those pending findings and recommendations 1 | were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 2 | fourteen (14) days after service. Ud.) To date, no objections to the pending findings and 3 || recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 4 On July 21, 2023, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, without having first obtained 5 | leave from the court to do so. (Doc. No. 7.) Nevertheless, the undersigned has reviewed 6 | plaintiff's proffered first amended complaint and finds that dismissal of this action remains 7 | appropriate pursuant to the application of the Younger abstention doctrine. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this court has conducted a 9 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 10 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 20, 2023 (Doc. No. 6) are 13 adopted in full; 14 2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4) is denied; 15 3. This action is dismissed; and 16 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. ' | pated: _ September 24, 2023 □□□ A. 2, ye 19 DALE A. DROZD 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28