Scoggins v. Falcon Court

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DANELL R. SCOGGINS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00188-KES-SKO 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING 11 v. CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 12 FALCON COURT and TURNING POINT Docs. 14, 15 OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, 13 Defendants. 14

15 16 17 Plaintiff Danell Scoggins, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint on 18 February 9, 2024. Doc. 1. The assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 19 concluded that it failed to state a cognizable claim. Doc. 7. The magistrate judge advised plaintiff 20 that she could file: (1) an amended complaint, which would be screened in due course, (2) a 21 statement that she wished to stand on the initial complaint and have it reviewed by the presiding 22 district judge, in which case the magistrate judge would issue findings and recommendations to 23 the district judge consistent with the screening order, or (3) a notice of voluntary dismissal. See 24 id. at 1. 25 On May 21, 2024, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Doc 9. The magistrate judge 26 screened the first amended complaint and recommended dismissal without prejudice and without 27 leave to amend because plaintiff had failed to correct the deficiencies identified in the original 28 1 complaint. Doc. 10. On August 13, 2024, plaintiff timely filed objections to those findings and 2 recommendations, Doc. 11, and on August 16, 2024, plaintiff filed an additional notice regarding 3 her retaliation allegations, Doc. 12. In light of plaintiff’s objections and additional notice, the 4 Court adopted in part those findings and recommendations. Doc. 13. The Court concluded that 5 the findings and recommendations correctly concluded that plaintiff’s first amended complaint 6 failed to state a claim but that leave to amend was proper. Id. The Court gave plaintiff one more 7 opportunity to amend to plead a retaliation claim. Id. at 3. 8 On May 29, 2025, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Doc. 14. The magistrate 9 judge issued findings and recommendation which noted that the second amended complaint was 10 untimely under the Court’s dismissal order, which ordered that any amended complaint be filed 11 within thirty days of March 28, 2025. See Doc. 13. The findings and recommendations further 12 concluded that plaintiff had again failed to plead a retaliation claim and recommended that this 13 action be dismissed without leave to amend. Doc. 15. The findings and recommendations 14 contained notice that any objections were due within twenty-one days. Id. at 6. On June 18, 2025, 15 plaintiff filed a document titled “Response — Findings and Recommendation,” which contains 16 vague allegations related to plaintiff’s claims but fails to address the deficiencies identified by the 17 findings and recommendations. Doc. 16. 18 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted a de novo 19 review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds that the findings and 20 recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. The second amended complaint 21 does not cure the deficiencies identified by the Court’s March 28, 2025 order and does not plead 22 facts sufficient to state a claim for retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. Plaintiff again failed to 23 identify any protected activity in which she engaged and any sufficiently adverse action taken by 24 defendants. Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (“To establish a 25 prima facie case of retaliation [under the Fair Housing Act], a plaintiff must show that (1) [she] 26 engaged in a protected activity; (2) the defendant subjected [her] to an adverse action; and (3) a 27 causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.”). Accordingly, the case 28 is dismissed without leave to amend. 1 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued June 3, 2025, Doc. 15, are ADOPTED 3 in full; 4 2. This action is DISMISSED due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim; and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 6 7 g | IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 9 Dated: _ June 20, 2025 4h 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28