- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE L. REVIS, No. 1:22-cv-1189 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER APOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 MOORE, et al., (Doc. 14) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Andre L. Revis asserts that he suffered violations of his civil rights while imprisoned at 18 California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California. The magistrate judge 19 observed that Plaintiff sought to state a claim for free exercise of religion under the First 20 Amendment, and that these rights were also protected by the Religious Land Use and 21 Institutionalized Persons Act. (See Doc. 14 at 5-8.) The magistrate judge determined that 22 Plaintiff failed to state a claim in his Second Amended Complaint because he did not “state what 23 happened, when it happened, or which defendant was involved.” (Id. at 4; see also id. at 5-10.) 24 To the extent Plaintiff also challenged the prison appeal process, the magistrate judge found 25 Plaintiff failed to state a constitutional violation based upon the denial of an appeal or grievance. 26 (Id. at 9.) Because Plaintiff was previously informed of the applicable legal standards and failed 27 to cure the pleading deficiencies, the magistrate judge found “[f]urther leave to amend is not 28 warranted” and recommended the action be dismissed. (Id. at 10-11.) 1 Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 19.) In his 2 | objections, Plaintiff reiterates many of the same factual allegations that were found insufficient to 3 | state acognizable claim. Plaintiff also explains the circumstances of the dismissal of the prior 4 | suit—in which he raised similar claims— for failure to pay the filing fee, Revis v. Sherman, Case 5 | No. 1;19-cv-00034-ADA-SKO. However, the dismissal of the prior action is unrelated to the 6 | determination that the Second Amended Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. Moreover, 7 | the allegations in Plaintiffs objections do not cure the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate 8 | Judge. 9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this 10 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds 11 | the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. As the 12 | magistrate judge observed, Plaintiff has been informed of the proper legal standards and failed to 13 || cure the identified pleading deficiencies. Therefore, the Court finds further leave to amend is 14 | futile. See, e.g., Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1008 (9th Cir. 2009) 15 | C‘repeated failure to cure deficiencies” supports a conclusion that amendment is futile). Thus, the 16 | Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 5, 2023 (Doc. 14), are 18 ADOPTED in full. 19 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim 20 upon which relief may be granted. 21 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | Dated: _ May 24, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 1:22-cv-01189
Filed Date: 5/24/2023
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/20/2024