Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02039/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02039-4/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

PAUL NIVARD BEATON,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. IMMIGRATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2039 TLN CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 15, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint as 

the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court dismissed plaintiff’s amended 

complaint with leave to amend and gave plaintiff instructions and guidance as to the contents of 

his second amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint.

As plaintiff now knows, the court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners 

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has 

raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

/////

Case 2:19-cv-02039-TLN-CKD Document 17 Filed 05/28/20 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

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff appears to challenge, as he did in his amended 

complaint, the fact that he has been identified by the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation as a “resident alien” rather than a naturalized citizen of the United States. 

However, plaintiff again fails to identify any consequences of this classification. Most 

importantly, plaintiff fails to point to any facts suggesting U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) has commenced removal proceedings against plaintiff pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 

1229a. Further, even assuming removal proceedings have commenced in some respect, plaintiff 

fails to point to anything suggesting recourse can be sought in a §1983 action and not within the 

explicit confines of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted. On two occasions, the court has provided plaintiff with instructions and guidance 

as to how he might state a claim upon which relief could be granted. As plaintiff has not been 

able to state an actionable claim thus far, granting leave to amend a third time appears futile.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted; and

2. This case be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 

the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

Dated: May 28, 2020

1/beat2039.dis

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02039-TLN-CKD Document 17 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 2