(PC) Wilson v. Bishop ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Melvin Lee Wilson, No. 2:21-cv-02025-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Cynthia Bishop, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Melvin Wilson, who is not represented by counsel in this action, asserts 18 | discrimination claims against several defendants. See generally Complaint, ECF No. 1. The 19 | matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge under this District’s Local Rules, and the Magistrate 20 | Judge recommends dismissing the complaint with prejudice under the screening procedures in 21 | U.S.C. § 1915A. See generally F&Rs, ECF No. 12. Mr. Wilson objects. See generally 22 | Objections, ECF No. 13. The court has reviewed the matter de novo. 23 Mr. Wilson alleges Cynthia Bishop, her mother, her brother, and another man conspired to 24 | frame him for making illegal threats. See Compl. at 3-6, ECF No. 1.! He claims they were 25 | motivated by antisemitism; he is Jewish. See id. at 4. At the time he filed this case, he was 26 | serving a term of incarceration and used a form complaint for prison civil rights claims. See ' To avoid confusion, the court cites the complaint using the page numbers applied automatically by the CM/ECF system to the top right of each page. 1 | generally id. On the first page of the form, he checked a box for civil rights claims under 2 | 42US.C. § 1983 to establish this court’s jurisdiction, and he argued the defendants had deprived 3 | him of rights under the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. See id. at 1,5. Mr. 4 | Wilson does not allege, however, that Ms. Wilson or any of the other defendants were employees 5 | or officers of any state or local government, and none of his allegations suggest they were acting 6 | under color of law, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court therefore agrees with the 7 | Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that no claim under § 1983 could succeed. See F&Rs at 3. 8 The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing this action without leave to amend because 9 | Mr. Wilson cannot use a civil rights action to challenge his criminal conviction. See id. at 4 10 | (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), among other authorities). Mr. Wilson argues in 11 | his objections that he does not challenge his conviction. See Objections at 2. He included 12 | allegations about his conviction as “background” only. /d. For that reason, the court declines to 13 | adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss this action as an improper attempt to 14 | attack a criminal conviction. 15 Without any claim under § 1983 or any other federal statute, and without any allegation 16 | suggesting the parties have completely diverse citizenship, this court has no jurisdiction over this 17 | action. This action is therefore dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (Tf 18 | the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss 19 | the action.”). The case is closed. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: March 24, 2022. [\ (] 22 l ti / { q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45