Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01496/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01496-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL ALCALA FARIAS, CASE NO. CV F-05-1496 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS

vs. ACTION

DEPUTY LEWIS, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Manuel Alcala Farias (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in formapauperis in this apparent

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983"). On November 23, 2005, plaintiff filed several

combined papers which this Court construed as a complaint (“complaint”). The complaint’s apparent

caption lists Deputies Lewis, Ochoa and Castillo (collectively “defendants”) as defendants but failed to

identify their employing law enforcement agency. The complaint appeared to take issue with the arrest

of and criminal proceedings against plaintiff’s wife. The complaint appeared to make vague references

to an attack.

On November 30, 2005, the Magistrate Judge dismissed the complaint based on its numerous

pleading deficiencies, failure to state a cognizable claim and apparent attempt to pursue claims for nonplaintiffs and to vex defendants. In response to the order, on December 12, 2005, plaintiff filed a form

amended complaint (“amended complaint”) which appears to name the same defendants as plaintiff’s

original complaint. The amended complaint is as unclear as plaintiff’s original complaint and appears

Case 1:05-cv-01496-AWI-LJO Document 11 Filed 12/27/05 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

2

to take issue with the arrest of plaintiff’s wife. The amended complaint appears to seek return of money

for bail for plaintiff’s family members. In addition, with the amended complaint, plaintiff burdens this

Court’s record with hundreds of pages of impertinent documents.

On December 14, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

recommended the court dismiss this action without prejudice on grounds that the amended complaint

failed to: (1) satisfy pleading, standing and real-party-in-interest requirements; and (2) state a cognizable

claim. On December 19, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court conducted a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Plaintiff's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. In the

objections, plaintiff continues to indicate that this action concerns his wife's arrest. As explained by the

Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff does not have standing to file an action concerning alleged constitutional

violations that may have happened to his wife. 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s December14, 2005 Findings and Recommendations are adopted

in full;

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01496-AWI-LJO Document 11 Filed 12/27/05 Page 2 of 2