Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03217/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03217-3/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

ROBERT EARL SAMUELS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3217 GGH P

vs.

LYNNE THORNBURG, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a request for reconsideration of the January 8, 2010, order

dismissing his complaint for failing to state a colorable claim. Named as defendants were San

Bernardino County Probation Officer Thornburg, the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, California Correctional Institution and California State Prison-Sacramento. 

Plaintiff alleged that defendant Thornburg prepared a report falsely stating that plaintiff was a

member of the Crip gang.

The court construed plaintiff’s complaint as having been brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and found that it failed to state colorable claims for relief against the defendants. 

In the request for reconsideration, plaintiff alleges that he brought his action pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

§ 552, the Privacy Act. 

/////

Case 2:09-cv-03217-GGH Document 14 Filed 02/01/10 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

2

The Privacy Act only applies to federal agencies, not state or local agencies and

not individuals. See Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1999). For that reason,

plaintiff’s Privacy Act claims against the defendants named in the complaint are not legally

cognizable. 

In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff also argues that he made state law

claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has

original jurisdiction.” Because plaintiff has stated no colorable federal claims, the court declined

to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims. 

For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is without

merit. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 20, 2010,

motion for reconsideration (no. 10) is denied.

DATED: February 1, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

sam3217.req

Case 2:09-cv-03217-GGH Document 14 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 2