(PC) Miles v. Inguanzo ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGIA MILES, No. 2:23-cv-01098-DAD-AC (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IN PART 14 INGUANZO, et al., (Doc. No. 8, 11, 14) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Georgia Miles was prisoner at the Sutter County Jail when she initiated this 18 action proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 19 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and 20 Local Rule 302. 21 On October 13, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 22 found that “it fails to make any specific allegations against any individual and is largely 23 unintelligible.” (Doc. No. 14 at 3.) The magistrate judge also concluded at that time that “[t]he 24 contents of the complaint, along with plaintiff’s subsequent declaration, are sufficiently 25 unintelligible that it is clear that leave to amend would not result in a cognizable claim.” (Id. at 26 4.) Accordingly, findings and recommendations were issued recommending that plaintiff’s 27 complaint be dismissed, without leave to amend, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable 28 claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) The magistrate judge also recommended that 1 | plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 8, 11) be denied. (Doc. No. 14 at 2 | 2) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)) (“A district 3 | court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the 4 | proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.”). Those pending findings and 5 || recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 6 | to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. Ud. at 4.) On October 26, 2023, plaintiff 7 | submitted a copy of the findings and recommendations to the court on which she has handwritten 8 | somewhat difficult to decipher objections to parts of the pending findings and recommendations 9 | and complains generally of plaintiff’s lack of law library access and the screening order. (Doc. 10 | No. 15.) Nonetheless, those objections do not meaningfully address the analysis set forth in the 11 | findings and recommendations nor do they provide a basis for declining to adopt them. Plaintiff 12 || does not request leave to amend her complaint nor does she proffer additional allegations she 13 | could assert and it therefore appears clear that granting leave to amend would be futile. 14 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 15 | conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 16 | plaintiff's objections to the pending findings and recommendations, the undersigned will adopt 17 | the findings and recommendations in full. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 13, 2023 (Doc. No. 14) are 20 adopted in full; 21 2. Plaintiff’s requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 8, 11) are 22 denied; 23 3, Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim; and 24 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. *° | Dated: _March 16, 2024 Dab A. 2, axel 27 DALE A. DROZD 3g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE