(PC) Hand v. Management and Training Corporation ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEHU HAND, 1:20-cv-00819-JLT-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL 13 vs. (Doc. 20.) 14 MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING ORDER DISMISSING CASE, WITH CORPORATION, et al., PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE 15 A CLAIM Defendants. (Doc. 18.) 16 17 18 On February 11, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge made findings and 19 recommendations that this case be dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to state 20 a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 20.) On February 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed 21 objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 21.) 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 23 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 24 including Plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not call into question the 26 reasoning provided in the findings and recommendations, which correctly conclude, among 27 other things, that screening is appropriate in this case because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma 28 pauperis; a private prison contractor cannot be sued under Bivens; and that Plaintiff cannot 1 || proceed with his breach of contract claim related to the contract between the Bureau of Prisons 2 || and Defendant because courts refuse to confer third party beneficiary status on inmates housed 3 private contract facilities. Finally, contrary to Plaintiff's suggestion in his objections (see 4 || Doc. No. 21 at 3), these rules do not leave inmates in private prisons without remedies. See 5 || Peters v. Hollie, No. 1:- -CV-01230-LJO-EPG (PC), 2019 WL 1556661, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 6 || 10, 2019) (explaining that in California state tort law provides remedies for individuals 7 || incarcerated in private prisons) (citing Minneci v. Pollar., 565 U.S. 118 (2012)). Accordingly, 8 || the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued February 11, 2022, (Doc. 20), are 10 adopted in full. 11 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a 12 claim upon which relief may be granted; and 13 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: _ March 7, 2022 Charis [Tourn 7 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28