(PC) Winston v. United States

Opinion

LEANTHONY T. WINSTON, No. 1:23-cv-01086-JLT-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING v. ACTION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (Doc. 11) Defendant. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotic Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On August 24, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief under Bivens. (Doc. 11.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were due within fourteen days. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 16.) In the meanwhile, plaintiff filed a request for declaratory judgment (Doc. 13), a motion for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order and a second request for declaratory judgment. (Docs. 14, 15.) In his objections, though recognizing the limited nature of Bivens (Doc. 16), fails to meaningfully address why Bivens should be extended to the factual situation raised in his complaint. Simply calling his First Amendment claim for deprivation of his property “cruel and unusual punishment,” fails to appreciate that the United States Supreme Court has called the act of recognizing a new Bivens action to “a disfavored judicial activity.” Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 491 (2022), quoting Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 123 (2017). Equating the officer’s actions in failing to ensure Plaintiff's personal property was not lost with infliction of cruel and unusual punishment is insufficient to demonstrate that Bivens should be extended to this factual context. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus,the Court ORDERS: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 24, 2023 (Doc. 11), are 2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. 3, All pending motions (Docs. 10, 13, 14, 15) are denied as moot. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 1g | Dated: _ October 16, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE