Carbajal v. Fresno Police Department

Opinion

JASON T. CARBAJAL, Case No. 1:21-cv-01825-JLT-BAM Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (Doc. 8) FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations that this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.1 (Doc. 8.) The magistrate judge also found that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20. Plaintiff filed objections on July 5, 2022. (Doc. 9.) According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Although Plaintiff’s objections attempt to cure Rule 8 pleading deficiencies, they fail to address any of the additional pleading and legal deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge, such as improper 1 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). een eee eee nnn nee en nn EO II ED

joinder, the statute of limitations, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and judicial immunity. Plaintiffs objections do not provide a basis for rejecting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and do not demonstrate that Plaintiff is able to cure the deficiencies in his complaint. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 16, 2022 (Doc. 8) are 2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _July 12, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE > 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 Section 1983 based upon a Miranda violation, which is one of the claims Plaintiff is trying to advance in this lawsuit.