Jimenez v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVELYN JIMENEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-01376 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 13 v. DISMISSING THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING THE 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 15 INVESTIGATION, (Doc. 9) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Evelyn Jimenez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action seeking to hold 19 the defendants liable for “global identification – Los Banos, CA,” “DMV Identification – Los 20 Banos, CA,” and “other Identification – San Diego and customs and borders – San Diego, CA.” 21 (Doc. 7.) 22 The magistrate judge reviewed the First Amended Complaint and found that, “despite the 23 explicit recitation of the deficiencies of the original complaint, Plaintiff has failed to plead any 24 cognizable claims.” (Doc. 9 at 1.) Plaintiff failed to plead any “factual allegations in the 25 complaint that identify the basis any federal claim(s),” did not “specify what state statute(s) she 26 finds unconstitutional and what basis she has for doing so, as specified in the Civil Cover Sheet,” 27 did not articulate the relief that she is seeking in the action, and failed to plead “any allegations 28 that would enable the Court to determine any basis by which Plaintiff could bring suit against the 1 | United States or the FBI.” (Ud. at 3-4.) Furthermore, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff 2 | “repeatedly demonstrated that she is unable to marshal facts sufficient to constitute a cognizable 3 | claim and that the addition of more detailed factual allegations or revision of Plaintiff's claims 4 | will not cure the defects of her amended complaint.” (/d. at 5.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 5 || recommended dismissal without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Ud.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that 7 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 9 at 1, 5-6.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the 8 | “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 9 | Ud. at 5-6, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not 10 | file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 11 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 12 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 13 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued February 27, 2025 (Doc. 9) are 15 ADOPTED in full. 16 2. This action is DISMISSED due to Plaintiffs failure to state a claim. 17 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _Mareh 25, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28