(PC) Price v. Link

Opinion

GABRIEL PRICE, No. 2:19-cv-2342 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER and J. LINK, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). By order filed May 6, 2020, the undersigned screened plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it failed to state a cognizable federal claim. See ECF No. 9. The court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, with instructions for doing so. Id. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, ECF No. 12, which is virtually identical to his original complaint, ECF No. 1. Review of the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A demonstrates that it too fails to state a cognizable federal claim for relief, for the reasons previously identified by this court. Plaintiff’s failure to cure his pleading defects by amendment, having been informed of the legal standards that apply to his putative claim, indicates that further amendment would be futile. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). EUTOUING INIT EN RUC tO PI ee Ye ee

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a district judge to this action. Further, for the reasons previously explained by the undersigned, see ECF No. 9, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate □□□□□□ □ Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: June 24, 2020 ~ Chthien—Chare ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE