(PC) Felix v. State of California ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, ) Case No.: 1: 24-cv-0014 JLT EPG (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THIS 13 v. ) CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ) WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ) ) (Doc. 9) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Scott Emerson Felix is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Based on departure of detention policies at Coalinga State 19 Hospital from a consent decree in United States of America v. State of California, et al., Doc. 3, No. 20 CV 06–2667 (C.D. California), Plaintiff alleged his rights under Americans with Disabilities Act 21 (ADA), as well as Fourteenth Amendment rights to restorative mental health treatment and non- 22 punitive conditions of confinement were violated. (See generally Doc. 1.) This matter was referred to a 23 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 25 determined “Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any cognizable claims.” (Doc. 9 at 8.) Specifically, the 26 magistrate judge found Plaintiff is unable to state claims against State of California or claims for 27 damages against state officials in their official capacity, as such claims are barred by the Eleventh 28 Amendment. (Id. at 4-5.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff failed to state cognizable claims 1 || because the Court cannot constitutionalize the standards set forth in a consent decree. (/d. at 5—7.) Th 2 || magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. (/d. at 8.) 3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 4 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 9 at 9.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file 5 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing 6 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 7 || time to do so has passed. 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of the action. 9 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 10 || supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 25, 2024 (Doc. 9) are 12 ADOPTED in full. 13 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 14 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: _May 2, 2024 ( Li pA LU. wan 18 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28