Jackson v. Zimmer ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMUEL DEREK JACKSON, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-1223 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF ) 14 CYNTHIA ZIMMER, et al., ) COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 13) ) 16 ) 17 Samuel Derek Jackson challenges his conviction in Kern County Superior Court on March 13, 18 2002, for lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under the age of 14 with the use of force. Plaintiff 19 seeks to hold the defendants—who are the grandparents of the minor victim—liable for violations of 20 his civil rights, asserting the charges against Plaintiff were false.1 (Doc. 12.) The assigned magistrate 21 judge found Plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable, because he does not identify any state actor as a 22 defendant and the requested relief is not available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 13 at 4-5.) Further, 23 the magistrate judge determined Plaintiff’s claim is barred pursuant to under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 24 U.S. 477 (1994). (Id. at 5.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed for 25 failure to state a claim. (Id. at 6.) 26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 27 28 1 Plaintiff removed Cynthia Zimmer and Velda Murillo as defendants in his amended complaint. (Compare Doc. 1 with 1 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 14 at 1.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 2 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (/d. at 1-2, 3 || citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, 4 || and the time to do so has passed. 5 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 6 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 7 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated February 21, 2024 (Doc. 13) are 9 ADOPTED. 10 2. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 12 13 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: _March 19, 2024 ( LAW ph L. wary 15 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28