Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00806/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00806-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH MICHAEL MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

REBECCA BOUNDS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00806-DAD-BAM

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR LACK OF 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE CLAIM UPON 

WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

(Doc. No. 9)

Plaintiff Joseph Michael Miller, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action. In this action, plaintiff is asserting claims against his ex-wife and her 

attorney. (See generally Doc. Nos. 1, 8.) 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 August 13, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending dismissing plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 9.) The 

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff with instructions that any objections 

thereto must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the order. On September 3, 2019, 

plaintiff filed a document wherein he (1) asserted additional allegations in support of his claims 

Case 1:19-cv-00806-DAD-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/04/20 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

and (2) requested an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 10). On 

September 5, 2019, plaintiff filed untimely objections to the findings and recommendations. 

(Doc. No. 11.) The court construes both the additional allegations set forth in plaintiff’s 

September 3, 2019 filing as well as the September 2, 2019 filing as objections to the pending 

findings and recommendations. 

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

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 

plaintiff’s objections and his request to file an amended complaint, the court finds that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff’s 

objections do not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s findings that: (1) the FAC does not 

adequately alleged federal jurisdiction; and (2) plaintiff cannot allege civil rights claims arising 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against private actors, such as his ex-wife and her attorney.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 13, 2019 (Doc. No. 9) are 

adopted in full; 

2. This action is dismissed based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted;

3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 10) 

is denied as having been rendered moot by this order dismissing this action; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00806-DAD-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 2