(PC) Looney v. Mattesion ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARGO LOONEY, No. 2:23-cv-0246 WBS CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GIGI MATTESION, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. On August 29, 2023, plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed with leave to file a 19 second amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint. 20 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 21 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 22 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 23 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 25 In the second amended complaint, plaintiff essentially complains about being housed in 26 Central and Northern California as opposed to Southern California where he would be closer to 27 family. As the court informed plaintiff in the March 2, 2023, screening order, there is no federal 28 right to be housed at a particular prison within a state’s prison system. Meachum v. Fano, 427 1 U.S. 215, 224 (1976). An inmate has a right under the Eighth Amendment not to be subjected to 2 cruel and unusual punishment, which includes not being housed in conditions of confinement 3 presenting a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 4 Plaintiff fails to show that prison officials are violating his rights under the Eighth Amendment by 5 failing to house plaintiff in Southern California. 6 Plaintiff also suggests a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 7 Amendment in that he cannot obtain a favorable transfer while other inmates can. The Equal 8 Protection Clause generally protects against unequal treatment as a result of intentional or 9 purposeful discrimination. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff fails 10 to point to anything suggesting discrimination or that he has been treated any differently than 11 persons with whom he is similarly situated. Id. 12 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 13 granted in his second amended complaint. Accordingly, the second amended complaint must be 14 dismissed. The court does not grant leave to file a third amended complaint as a review of all of 15 plaintiff’s pleadings indicates that doing so would be futile. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 18 which relief can be granted; and 19 2. This case be closed. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 22 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 23 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 24 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1] || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 | (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || Dated: November 29, 2023 Card Kt | / ye □□□ 4 CAROLYNK.DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 fi 9 loon0246.frs 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28