(PC) Shannon v. Bachand ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SETH PETER SHANNON, No. 2:22-cv-1066-KJM-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 VICTOR BACHAND, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 5, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 | ....°). Having reviewed the file, except as noted in this order the court finds the findings and 2 || recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The court writes 3 || separately to clarify that, as the magistrate judge correctly found, plaintiffs malicious prosecution 4 || claim only accrues, if at all, if the legal proceedings he is currently facing terminate in his favor. 5 || ECF No. 6 at 3 (citation omitted). The court is unable to determine from the allegations of the 6 || complaint whether the malicious prosecution claim alleged by plaintiff is frivolous on its face. 7 | Cf. Washington v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, 833 F.3d 1048, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 8 | 2016) (discussing dismissals under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). For that reason, the 9 || claim will be dismissed as premature. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 5, 2022, are adopted in full. 12 2. This action is dismissed as premature and due to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. 13 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 14 3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. 15 | DATED: October 30, 2022. 16 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28