(PC) Brooks v. North Kern State Prison ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVION LAMAR BROOKS, Case No. 1:23-cv-1751 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 13 v. DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK 14 NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al., OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 13) 16 17 Davion Lamar Brooks is a state prisoner, who sought to hold the defendants—including 18 North Kern State Prison and the assistant warden at the facility—liable for violations of his civil 19 rights. (See Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. 21 (Doc. 11 at 4-11.) The magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff appeared to challenge his RVR 22 conviction and resulting time added to his sentence. (Id. at 4.) The magistrate judge noted that 23 Plaintiff’s “damages allegations expressly implicate the validity of his confinement,” and found 24 such claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (See id. at 4-5.) To the 25 extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge his conviction, the magistrate judge observed that his remedy 26 lies with habeas corpus relief. (Id. at 5.) The magistrate judge determined claims against North 27 Kern State Prison were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. (Id. at 7-8.) Finally, the magistrate 28 judge found the allegations were insufficient to state a claim against the assistant warden. (Id. at 1 7, 8-9.) The Court then granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (See id. at 2 10.) 3 After Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, the magistrate judge issued Findings 4 and Recommendations, recommending the action be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 13.) The 5 magistrate judge reiterated the findings in the Screening Order, again finding that Plaintiff’s 6 failed to state a claim, and some claims were barred by Heck and the Eleventh Amendment. 7 (Doc. 13 at 2-10.) In addition, the magistrate judge found terminating sanctions were appropriate 8 for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and failure to obey the Court’s order to file an 9 amended complaint, after considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit. (Id. at 10-12.) 10 Although the Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff, the U.S. Postal 11 Service returned the document as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward, 12 Inactive” on June 24, 2024.1 13 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of the action. 14 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the finding that Plaintiff failed to state 15 a cognizable claim is supported by proper analysis. Likewise, the finding that terminating 16 sanctions are appropriate are supported by the record and properly analysis. However, it is 17 unclear whether Plaintiff could not cure pleading deficiencies or seek habeas relief, such that the 18 action should be dismissed with prejudice.2 19 To the extent Plaintiff stated claims that are barred by Heck because he challenges the 20 validity of his conviction, dismissal on such grounds should be without prejudice. See 21 Washington v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 883 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2016) (“a Heck 22 dismissal is made without prejudice”); see also Ronje v. King, 667 Fed. Appx. 968, 969 (9th Cir. 23 2016) (where the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim barred by Heck, the district court erred in 24 dismissing the action with prejudice and the matter was remanded “for entry of dismissal without 25 prejudice”). In addition, because “[t]he Eleventh Amendment is a limit on federal courts’ 26 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), any Notice of Change of address was due within 63 days. To date, Plaintiff has not 27 notified the Court of his current mailing address. 2 The magistrate judge initially found Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend to cure the pleading deficiencies or to 28 seek habeas relief. This suggests the claims are not entirely futile. (See Doc. 11 at 10.) 1 | jurisdiction,” the Ninth Circuit indicate dismissal should be without prejudice. Freeman v. 2 | Oakland unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999). Finally, dismissal without 3 || prejudice is also a suitable sanction for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. See Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 4 | F.2d 493, 496-97 (9th Cir. 1984) (“dismissal without prejudice is a more easily justified sanction 5 | for failure to prosecute”). For these reasons, the Court declines to dismiss the action with 6 || prejudice, but instead modifies the dismissal to be without prejudice. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 12, 2024 (Doc. 13) are 8 ADOPTED in part. 9 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 11 b IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _September 3, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28