Carbajal v. Fresno Police Department ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON T. CARBAJAL, Case No. 1:21-cv-01825-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 8) 14 FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and issued 18 findings and recommendations that this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim 19 for relief.1 (Doc. 8.) The magistrate judge also found that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 20 violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20. Plaintiff filed objections on July 5, 2022. 21 (Doc. 9.) 22 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the 23 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds 24 that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Although 25 Plaintiff’s objections attempt to cure Rule 8 pleading deficiencies, they fail to address any of the 26 additional pleading and legal deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge, such as improper 27 1 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 28 1915(e)(2). een eee eee nnn nee en nn EO II ED 1 | joinder, the statute of limitations, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and judicial immunity. 2 | Plaintiffs objections do not provide a basis for rejecting the magistrate judge’s findings and 3 | recommendations and do not demonstrate that Plaintiff is able to cure the deficiencies in his 4 | complaint. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 16, 2022 (Doc. 8) are 6 ADOPTED IN FULL. 7 2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which 8 relief may be granted; and 9 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 | Dated: _July 12, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | > Inaddition, after the issuance of the findings and recommendations, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. ___, 2022 WL 2251304 (2022), that a plaintiff cannot bring a cause of action for damages under 28 Section 1983 based upon a Miranda violation, which is one of the claims Plaintiff is trying to advance in this lawsuit.