Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00724/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00724-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT BIAGAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0724 LKK EFB P

vs.

CSP-SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

under 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 General Order No. 262.

On October 15, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which

were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On May 15, 2007, the

magistrate judge found that plaintiff failed to state a claim against any defendant because he did

not identify any individual who allegedly violated his rights. The magistrate judge explained

that plaintiff must identify particular individuals who violated his rights and informed plaintiff of

the elements of the claims plaintiff appeared to be asserting. The magistrate judge gave plaintiff

30 days to file an amended complaint and warned him that failure to do so would result in a

Case 2:07-cv-00724-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 12/13/07 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

2

recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff sought and

obtained four extensions of time to file an amended complaint. He failed to do so, and on

October 15, 2007, the magistrate judge recommended that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim. 

Within five weeks of the date the findings and recommendations were filed, plaintiff filed

two sets of objections to the findings and recommendations, and a document styled, “Notice and

Motion Allow Plaintiff a Reasonable Opportunity to Prevail on the Merits.” In the objections

filed on October 30, 2007, plaintiff asserts that prison staff tampered with his mail, but does not

state that he attempted to mail an amended complaint. He also asserts that “prison officials . . . is

and/or has wilful acts of the basic quality of unlawful use of unreasonable excessive force

malicious and sadistic acts in bad faith to cause harm.” Pl.’s Oct. 30, 2007 Objs., at 3. In the

objections filed October 22, 2007, plaintiff complains that the 20-day period to object to the

findings and recommendations is too short, demands a trial, and alleges that since he filed his

complaint, prison officials have subjected him to a cell extraction. In his November 21, 2007, 

“Notice and Motion,” plaintiff asserts that he has demanded a trial in state and federal court and

that at some time he was forcefully extracted from his cell and transferred to a different prison. 

He also complains that somehow his Fourth Amendment rights have been violated. 

Having considered these documents in detail, the court notes that in not one of them does

plaintiff attempt to cure the deficiencies in his complaint. Despite his list of complaints against

prison officials, he makes no connection between them and his failure to file an amended

complaint. In fact, plaintiff offers no suggestion of why in the past six months he has not filed

any document attempting to follow the magistrate judge’s instructions regarding what is required

to state a claim. Thus, the court finds that this action must be dismissed for the reasons

explained by the magistrate judge.

Having conducted a de novo review of this case, see, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local

Rule 72-304, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

Case 2:07-cv-00724-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 12/13/07 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

3

by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 15, 2007, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.

DATED: December 13, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00724-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 12/13/07 Page 3 of 3