Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00982/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00982-7/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

ALAN HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. VIGLER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00982-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 18)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION

1983 (Doc. 17)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL

SHALL COUNT AS A STRIKE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915(G)

Plaintiff Alan Hamilton (“plaintiff”) is a former state

prisoner proceeding pro se 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 March 22, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Case 1:06-cv-00982-LJO -SMS Document 21 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. 

On April 17, 2007, plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

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. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Plaintiff does not have a protected liberty interest in his

vocational assignment, and therefore no federal due process

claims lies from defendants’ interference with his access to his

vocational assignment. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484

(1995); Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976); Rizzo v.

Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530-31 (9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff’s

contention that because he is African-American, defendants must

have been targeting him based on race is insufficient to support

a claim for denial of equal protection. (Obj., 5:5-10.) 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which would support a claim

that defendants intentionally discriminated against him based on

his race. Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir.

2003). Plaintiff also concedes non-exhaustion of this claim,

which would bar him from pursuing the claim in this action even

if his allegations had been found sufficient to state a claim. 

Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007). (Obj., 5:11-18.)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 22, 2007,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00982-LJO -SMS Document 21 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

1983; and

3. This dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00982-LJO -SMS Document 21 Filed 06/01/07 Page 3 of 3