Hendrix v. City of Madera ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER C. HENDRIX, No. 1:23-cv-01212-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER TO CLOSE 13 v. CASE 14 CITY OF MADERA, et al., (Doc. 6) 15 Defendants. 16 17 In this federal civil rights case, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, alleges in the currently 18 operative first amended complaint (FAC) that he was the victim of a sexual assault and that, upon 19 reporting the assault to authorities, he was treated dismissively by the investigating Madera Police 20 Department Officer, Lori Alva. (See generally Doc. 5.) The FAC further alleges that Alva’s 21 actions were motivated by Plaintiff’s age, sex, and race. (Id.) On September 14, 2023, the 22 assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss this action for failure 23 to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 6.) The Court served the 24 findings and recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections thereto were to be 25 filed within 14 days after service. (Id.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do 26 so has passed. 27 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the 28 case. Though not discussed explicitly in the findings and recommendations, the Court notes that a 1 | state actor can violate the Equal Protection Clause if they selectively discriminate against a 2 | member of a protected class in providing police protection or services, including investigatory 3 | services. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 489 U.S. 189, 195-97 n. 3 4 | (1989); Elliot-Park v. Manglona, 592 F.3d 1003, 1006-1008 (9th Cir. 2010) (“If police refuse to 5 || investigate or arrest people who commit crimes against a particular ethnic group, it's safe to 6 | assume that crimes against that group will rise.”). However, even viewing the allegations in the 7 | FAC in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not articulated 8 || an equal protection claim consistent with the relevant authorities, in part because the FAC fails to 9 | explain in a non-conclusory manner how Officer Alva’s investigation was materially insufficient. 10 | To be clear, though he claims he was treated differently, he fails to set forth factual allegations— 11 | as opposed to conclusions—as to the grounds for this claim. Thus, having carefully reviewed the 12 | entire file, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 13 | record and proper analysis. Accordingly: 14 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 14, 2023 (Doc. 6) are 15 ADOPTED IN FULL. 16 2. The first amended complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable 17 claim. 18 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 | Dated: _ October 24, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28