Case Information
*1 Case 1:19-cv-01780-DAD-SKO Document 17 Filed 12/03/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RUDY JIMENEZ, No. 1:19-cv-01780-DAD-SKO (PC) Plaintiff,
v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ACTION
COUNTY OF KINGS, et al.,
(Doc. No. 15) Defendants.
Plaintiff Rudy Jimenez is state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 15, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) and issued findings and recommendations recommending that the FAC be dismissed without further leave to amend being granted. (Doc. No. 15.) The magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to § 1983 are barred because he alleges that he is unlawfully incarcerated and he requests declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and $75 million in damages, but his underlying criminal conviction has not “been declared invalid by a state court or a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” ( Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge therefore concluded that plaintiff’s claims as asserted in his FAC are barred by the Supreme Court’s
1
*2 Case 1:19-cv-01780-DAD-SKO Document 17 Filed 12/03/20 Page 2 of 2 decision in Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). ( Id. at 2–3.) The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the FAC without granting further leave to amend, noting that plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend and he has still failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. ( Id. at 4.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. ( Id. ) On November 16, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 16.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
In his objections, plaintiff merely reiterates the claims that he asserted in his FAC and states that certain individuals should be investigated. (Doc. No. 16 at 2–3.) Plaintiff does not meaningfully object to the magistrate judge’s findings that his claims in this action are barred by the decision in Heck .
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 15, 2020 (Doc. No. 15) are adopted in full;
2. This action is dismissed as barred by the decision in Heck ; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 2, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2