Ruben Marines v. Tyson Pogue, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00030
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RUBEN MARINES, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0030 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF ) COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 14 TYSON POGUE, et al., ) ) (Doc. 9) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17

18 Ruben Marines seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights and 19 negligence while housed as a pretrial detainee at the Madera County Jail. (See generally Doc. 1.) The 20 magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found he failed 21 to state a cognizable claim for failure to protect and/or conditions of confinement, and he did not allege 22 facts sufficient to invoke supervisor liability. (Doc. 7 at 5-6, 8-10.) The magistrate judge also found 23 Plaintiff failed to allege compliance California’s Government Claims Act, as required to proceed on the 24 negligence raised. (Id. at 10.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend and warned him that failure 25 to do so would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Id. at 10-11.) 26 After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the magistrate judge issued Findings and 27 Recommendations, recommending dismissal. (Doc. 9.) The magistrate judge reiterated the findings in 28 the Screening Order that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim under federal law, and did not 1 comply with the Government Claims Act to as required for his claims under state law. (Id. at 2-10.) 2 The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff failed to prosecute this action and failed to obey the Court’s 3 order. (Id. at 10.) The magistrate judge found terminating sanctions were appropriate after considering 4 the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 5 1986). (Id. at 11-12.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal “with prejudice, for failure 6 to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, for failure to obey a court order, and for Plaintiff’s 7 failure to prosecute this action.” (Id. at 12.) 8 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 9 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 9 at 12.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 10 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson 11 v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do 12 so has passed. 13 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 14 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations related 15 to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under federal law, failure to prosecute, and failure to obey a Court’s 16 order are supported by the record and proper analysis. However, the Court notes the magistrate judge 17 also initially determined that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Claims Act. The Court 18 will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim absent a cognizable federal claim. 19 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Moreover, a plaintiff’s failure to file a claim under the Act deprives this 20 Court of jurisdiction to hear those claims. See Creighton v. City of Livingston, 628 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 21 1224-25 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the state negligence 22 claims, the claims must be dismissed without prejudice. See Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 23 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017) (“dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is without prejudice”); Les 24 Shockley Racing v. Nat'l Hot Rod Assoc., 884 F.2d 504, 509 (9th Cir. 1989) (“When ... the court 25 dismisses the federal claim leaving only state claims for resolution, the court should decline jurisdiction 26 over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice”). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 25, 2025 (Doc. 9) are 28 ADOPTED in part. 1 2. Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to 2 state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the Court’s order. 3 3. Plaintiff's negligence claims arising under state law are DISMISSED without prejudic 4 for lack of jurisdiction. 5 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 20, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan 9 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28