(PC) Lal v. United States of America ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AZHAR LAL, No. 2:20-cv-00349-DAD-DB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ACTION 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 40) 16 17 Plaintiff Azhar Lal, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on 18 February 14, 2020. (Doc. No. 1). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 3, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 21 complaint (“FAC”) and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be 22 dismissed, without leave to amend, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon 23 which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 40.) In particular, plaintiff’s FAC states that this action 24 is “brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1350 & 1350(a),” which is the federal Alien Tort Statute 25 (“ATS”), but as the magistrate judge explained in the pending findings and recommendations, the 26 “ATS is a jurisdictional statute creating no new causes of action.” (Doc. No. 40 at 5) (citing Sosa 27 v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 724 (2004)). Plaintiff is adamant that he has not brought this 28 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nevertheless, the magistrate judge also concluded that even 1 if the court were to construe plaintiff’s FAC as brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff’s 2 FAC alleges unlawfulness of his criminal sentence (i.e., the improper collection of evidence and 3 that he received ineffective assistance from his counsel at trial and on appeal), and those claims 4 are not cognizable in a civil rights action brought under § 1983. (Doc. No. 40 at 5–7.) Finally, 5 the magistrate judge concluded that conversion of plaintiff’s FAC to a federal habeas petition is 6 inappropriate because plaintiff previously filed successive petitions for federal habeas relief, 7 which were dismissed. (Id. at 7–8.) 8 Those pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 9 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. 10 at 8–9.) On May 31, 2022, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 11 No. 49.)1 12 In his objections, plaintiff does not meaningfully address the analysis in the findings and 13 recommendations. Rather than addressing the finding that his FAC failed to state a cognizable 14 claim for relief, plaintiff cites several cases in which courts addressed whether they had subject 15 matter jurisdiction over an action based on the ATS. (Id.) But plaintiff’s focus on subject matter 16 jurisdiction is misplaced because the findings and recommendations do not rely on a lack of 17 subject matter jurisdiction as a basis for dismissing this action. For these reasons, plaintiff’s 18 objections do not provide any basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 19 recommendations. 20 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 21 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 22 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 23 record and by proper analysis. 24 Accordingly, 25 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 3, 2022 (Doc. No. 40) are 26 adopted in full; 27 28 1 This case was reassigned to the undersigned district judge on August 25, 2022. (Doc. No. 51.) 1 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiffs failure to state a cognizable claim for 2 relief; and 3 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ November 9, 2022 De A. 2, st 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28