Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05621/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05621-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO V. OCHOA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05621-REC-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 33)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND

DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

FOR DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff, Armando V. Ochoa (“plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action 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 72-302.

On October 14, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On November 4, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations and lodged a

Case 1:03-cv-05621-REC -LJO Document 36 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 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

Plaintiff names nine Defendants and twenty (20) Doe Defendants in the lodged Second Amended 1

Complaint.

Even had Plaintiff linked any of the named Defendants to an act or omission giving rise to a violation of his 2

rights, it appears that at most, Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim for relief based on negligence. A violation of state

tort law alone, however, is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, there

must be a deprivation of federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976). 

2

Second Amended Complaint in an attempt to comply with the Court’s

initial Order dismissing with leave to amend. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case, including the lodged Second Amended

Complaint. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the

record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint continues to be deficient in that it again fails to

link any of the twenty-nine (29) named Defendants to an act or 1

omission giving rise to the claim for relief stated.2

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 14,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety for

plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment

for defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05621-REC -LJO Document 36 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 2