Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00064/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00064-2/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY GISCOME,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. REDMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00064-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. No. 18)

Plaintiff Timothy Giscome is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with 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 302.

On June 21, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 18.) 

Finding that plaintiff’s second amended complaint contained the same deficiencies as his first two 

complaints, the magistrate judge recommended that the second amended complaint be dismissed 

without further leave to amend. (Id. at 5.) The findings and recommendations were served on 

plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service of the findings and recommendations. (Id.) Plaintiff requested a 30-day extension 

of time to file his objections, and the magistrate judge granted the requested extension on July 17, 

2019. (Doc. No. 20.)

Case 1:19-cv-00064-DAD-JDP Document 26 Filed 02/20/20 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

2

On August 26, 2019, plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Concession to the 

Magist. Findings and Recommendations: And Plaintiff’s Request for Permission to File a Third 

Amended Complaint.” (Doc. No. 21.) In that filing, plaintiff concedes that the pending findings 

and recommendations are correct in that his second amended complaint was identical to his first 

amended complaint. (Id.) But, he “was having a hard time getting to the law library, and the 

information the plaintiff was being provided via assistance was not accurate at all,” so he had to 

research the cases provided in the court’s order to see how to properly state a claim. (Id.)

Plaintiff requested the court to consider his proposed third amended complaint, which he attached 

to his filing. (Id.) 

On February 10, 2020, the magistrate judge issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for 

leave to file his third amended complaint, finding that “further amendment would be futile, as 

evidenced by a repeated failure to cure deficiencies in the amendments previously allowed,” and 

noting that the proposed third amended complaint—which was not accepted or considered on the 

merits—contained the same deficiencies, further confirming that the granting of further leave to 

amend would be futile. (Doc. No. 25 at 2.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 21, 2019 (Doc. No. 18) are 

adopted in full; 

2. This action is dismissed; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00064-DAD-JDP Document 26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 2