Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01020/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01020-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDI NIEVES,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:21-cv-01020-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF 

CAN BE GRANTED

Doc. 22

Plaintiff Sandi Nieves is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On September 13, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a 

claim upon which relief could be granted. Doc. 22. The findings and recommendations were 

served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service. Id. at 12. On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to 

file objections. Doc. 23. The magistrate judge granted Plaintiff an extension of thirty days in 

which to file objections. Doc. 24. Plaintiff filed her objections on October 20, 2023. Doc. 25.

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

novo review of this case. In her objections, Plaintiff asserts that she seeks a settlement of her 

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 30 Filed 11/26/24 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

claims, and she objects to the court’s previous instruction that she pay the filing fee and requests 

either a stay or waiver of the filing fee, but she does not meaningfully address the findings and 

recommendations. See Doc. 25. Here, Plaintiff was previously granted an opportunity the cure 

the defects in her complaint but failed to do so in the first amended complaint. Thus, dismissal of 

Plaintiff’s case is appropriate and mandatory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“It is clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an 

in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”).

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 13, 2023 (Doc. 22) are 

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and to CLOSE

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 30 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 2