(PC) Hudson v. Phiffier ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT HUDSON, No. 1:21-cv-01254-ADA-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION FOR FRIVOLOUSNESS AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 WARDEN C. PHIFFIER, (ECF No. 18) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Robert Hudson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action filed pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 30, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state 22 a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff filed objections on July 14, 2023. (ECF No. 19.) In 23 his one-paragraph objections, Plaintiff simply restates, in conclusory fashion, his belief that the 24 reduction of his pay and work hours at Kern Valley State Prison, without a hearing or written 25 notice, violated his due process rights. (Id.) Plaintiff does not, however, address the Magistrate 26 Judge’s determination that he lacks a protected liberty interest in his job. (See ECF No. 5–6 27 (citing Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004).) It is true that, even though a 28 prisoner lacks a property or liberty interest in a prison job, the government may not interfere with 1 | that job for unconstitutional reasons or in a way that infringes the prisoner’s constitutional rights. 2 | See Vignolo v. Miller, 120 F.3d 1075, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 1997). Neither Plaintiffs sparse 3 | complaint nor the additional documents he provided to augment the complaint, (ECF No. 16), 4 | however, allege that any such unconstitutional behavior occurred in this case. Therefore, the 5 | Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that permitting Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the 6 | complaint would be futile. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this Court has conducted 8 | ade novo review of this case. After carefully reviewing the entire file, the Court concludes that 9 | the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 30, 2023, (ECF No. 18), are 12 adopted in full; 13 2. This action is dismissed with prejudice for frivolousness and failure to state a 14 cognizable claim; and 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 17 1g | IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: _ October 25, 2023 50 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28