(PC) Robinson v. Jones ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAVAUGN K. ROBINSON, No. 2:22-cv-1717 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TY JONES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 7, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 23 the 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 ///// | ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations are not 2 || supported by the proper analysis. 3 The magistrate judge recommends denying plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim. See 4 | ECF No. 11 at 4. This screening order finds plaintiff “fails to state a claim for relief under the 5 || Fourteenth Amendment.” See id. at 2. The magistrate judge finds there is “nothing in □□□□□□□□□□□ 6 || complaint suggesting he has a viable Fourteenth Amendment claim... .” /d. 7 “(B]efore dismissing a pro se complaint the district court must provide the litigant with 8 | notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the litigant uses the opportunity 9 | to amend effectively.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ferdik v. 10 | Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). Further, a “district court should not dismiss a pro 11 || se complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 12 || complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” /d. (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 13 | 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir.1988)). The screening order here does not meet this requirement. The 14 | order cites no legal authority governing Fourteenth Amendment claims and does not address the 15 | allegation that plaintiff, a transgender inmate, was injured “due to [her] sexual orientation and 16 || gender.” ECF No. | at 2-3. Nor does the order provide any explanation for the finding that there 17 | isa failure to state a claim. As a result, the order’s conclusory assertion that plaintiff failed to 18 || state a claim for relief does not allow the plaintiff an effective opportunity to cure the purported 19 || deficiency in the complaint. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 20 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 7, 2022, are not adopted; 21 2. The magistrate judge is directed to screen plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim and 22 || provide plaintiff notice of the deficiencies, if any, in the complaint; and 23 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 24 || proceedings consistent with this order. 25 || DATED: January 17, 2023. /\ /) 26 L epi Mal { g_/ 7 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28