Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00560/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00560-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Darrell R. Fisher seeks to hold defendant “J. Doe” liable “for his criminal acts in 1994.” (Doc. 

1 at 5.) Fisher asserts that on an unspecified date in 1994, he was “singled-out for a vehicle 

inspection” at a weigh station and Doe—who he describes as an “out-of-work CHP armed with a 

gun”— searched Fisher’s motor vehicle without a warrant. (Id. at 7.) Fisher moved to proceed in 

forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. 2.) Therefore, the magistrate judge screened the complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

The magistrate judge found “the Complaint is factually frivolous” to the extent Fisher alleged 

the actions of Doe caused him to be prosecuted and imprisoned for more than twenty years, because 

Fisher was ordered committed to Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, after he “was 

found incompetent to stand trial and, subsequently, was found not restorable to competency.” (Doc. 7 

at 4, citing United States v. Fisher, Case No. 4:99-cr-00012-BCW-1 (W.D. Mo.). In addition, the 

magistrate judge observed that “the allegations in the Complaint are essentially duplicative of claims 

DARREL R. FISHER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. DOE, et al., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0560 JLT HBK

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, DISMISSING 

THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, DENYING 

PLAINIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 

COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE

(Docs. 2, 7)

Case 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK Document 11 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that have summarily been dismissed by other district courts.” (Id., citing, e.g., Fisher v. McKinney, 

Case No. 2:24-cv-03284-DFS-AJR (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2024); Fisher v. McKinney, Case No. 2:24-cv03223-RGK-DFM (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2024); Fisher v. Connor, Case No. 4:18-cv-00521-ODS (W.D. 

Mo., Aug. 20, 2018); Fisher v. Doe, Case No. 4:18-cv-00684-W-FJG-P (W.D. Mo. Oct. 6, 2023); 

Fisher v. Roberts, Case No. 5:23-ct-03225-M-RJ (E.D. N.C. Nov. 7, 2023); Fisher v. U.S. District 

Court, Case No. 5:24-ct-03026-BO (E.D. N.C., Apr. 17, 2024); Fisher v. Casey, Case No. 4:23-cv00733-FJG (W.D. Mo. Oct. 13, 2023).) Finally, the magistrate judge found Fisher’s claims are 

“barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations” and subject to dismissal “because the alleged 

wrongdoing occurred sometime in 1994.” (Id. at 5.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended the 

Court dismiss the complaint as frivolous and without leave to amend. (Id.)

Fisher filed objections, suggesting the magistrate judge exceeded her authority in issuing 

Findings and Recommendations and “object[ing] to the fact that [the] Magistrate even had the guts to 

write anything at all in this civil action.” (Doc. 8 at 1; see also id. at 3-5.) Further, Fisher asserts the 

magistrate judge and this Court have a history of violating individuals’ “right to be heard in a proper 

court setting.” (Id. at 4.) He also questions the knowledge of the magistrate judge, asserting she “does 

not even know the difference between Plaintiff/Defendant and Petitioner/Respondent to know those 

are ... criminal ‘case’ terms and civil action terms per the latter pair of terms used here properly.” (Id.

at 2.) Fisher contends the recommendation of dismissal should not be adopted. (Id. at 5.)

The objections do not meaningfully address the analysis of the magistrate judge. To the extent 

Fisher questions the legal acuity of the magistrate judge based upon the vocabulary used, his assertions 

are plainly without merit.1 In addition, Fisher fails to show the magistrate judge acted beyond the 

scope of authority granted. This matter was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B), under which a magistrate judge may “submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of 

fact and recommendations for the disposition” of certain matters. The magistrate judge did not issue 

1 The Oxford English Dictionary defines “plaintiff” as “[t]he party who brings a suit into a court of law.” 

Plaintiff, OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, Vol. XI at 957 (2nd ed. 1991). In addition, “defendant” is “[a] 

person sued in a court of law; the party in a suit who defends; opposed to plaintiff.” Defendant, OXFORD 

ENGLISH DICTIONARY, Vol. IV at 377 (2nd ed. 1991). Both words have been used to identify parties in 

lawsuits—the same manner as that employed by the magistrate judge—for more than 500 years. See Plaintiff,

OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, Vol. XI at 957; Defendant, OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, Vol. IV at 377.

Case 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK Document 11 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dispositional order, or act beyond the scope of statutory authority. Rather, the magistrate judge 

prepared the Findings and Recommendations as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 

Moreover, Fisher does not dispute—let alone acknowledge—the finding that his claims are barred by 

the statute of limitations. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court 

ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated June 7, 2024 (Doc. 7) are ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

3. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate pending motions and to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 

Case 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK Document 11 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 3