(PC) Harding v. Sacramento County Sheriff Dept ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRENT LEE HARDING, No. 2:21-cv-00964-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. 20 I. Screening Standard 21 As plaintiff was previously advised, the court is required to screen complaints brought by 22 prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 23 entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court will independently dismiss a complaint or portion 24 thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state 25 a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 26 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 27 II. Allegations in the Second Amended Complaint 28 At all times relevant to the allegations in the amended complaint, plaintiff was a pretrial 1 detainee at the Sacramento County Main Jail. Plaintiff names defendant Ken Brody, a county 2 commissioner, as the only defendant in the amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that following 3 his initial arrest on March 17, 2021, defendant Brody increased his bail in a manner that violated 4 state law and exceeded the county bail schedule. Plaintiff also alleges that he was not transported 5 from the county jail to court on two separate occasions. However, he does not identify any 6 individual jail official who was responsible for failing to transport him to court. Plaintiff merely 7 states that defendant Brody “had it in his power to inquire” about plaintiff’s whereabouts, but he 8 did not do so. ECF No. 9 at 3. By way of relief, plaintiff seeks punitive damages and a monitor 9 to be appointed to review the Sacramento County Superior Court system. 10 III. Analysis 11 After being provided with the relevant legal standards, plaintiff has been unable to fix the 12 deficiencies identified in the court’s prior screening orders. See ECF Nos. 5, 8. The second 13 amended complaint fails to state any claim for relief against defendant Brody. There are no 14 factual allegations linking defendant Brody to any constitutional violation. The second amended 15 complaint only alleges that defendant Brody violated state law and the county bail schedule. 16 These claims are not cognizable in a Section 1983 action. For all these reasons, the undersigned 17 recommends dismissing plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 18 Once the court finds that a complaint or claim should be dismissed for failure to state a 19 claim, the court has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Leave to amend should 20 be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if 21 a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Cato v. 22 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant must be given leave to 23 amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that 24 the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” (citation omitted). 25 However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a claim cannot be cured by amendment, 26 the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105-06. 27 It appears to the court that further amendment of this case would be futile. Therefore, the 28 undersigned recommends that the amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to 1 amend. Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th 2 Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to 3 allow futile amendments). 4 I. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party 5 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 6 intended as legal advice. 7 The court has reviewed your second amended complaint and determined that it does not 8 state any claim for relief against defendant Brody. It is recommended that your complaint be 9 dismissed without further leave to amend. 10 If you disagree with this recommendation, you have 14 days to explain why it is not the 11 correct outcome in your case. Label your explanation “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 12 and Recommendations.” The district judge assigned your case will then review the case and 13 make the final decision in this matter. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this 15 matter to a district court judge. 16 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend; 18 and, 19 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 22 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 23 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 24 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 25 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 2 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: March 23, 2022 Cad □ ht fa he 4 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 | □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28