Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00117/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00117-4/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 

PATRICK SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALPIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:24-cv-00117-KJM-JDP (PC) 

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 as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On October 1, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

recommended the dismissal of this action without leave to amend. ECF No. 14. The findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and set a fourteen-day deadline for any objections. Id.

at 2. Plaintiff objected to the findings and recommendations after that deadline had passed. ECF 

No. 15. The court has considered the late objections and has reviewed the matter de novo. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff also filed a notice of appeal of the findings and 

recommendations. ECF No. 16. That notice does not deprive this court of jurisdiction. See 

Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372–73 (9th Cir. 1993). 

///// 

Case 2:24-cv-00117-KJM-JDP Document 18 Filed 12/09/24 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 

 Plaintiff alleges defendants were negligent, but pursues a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that allegations of negligence cannot support a claim 

under § 1983. The court adopts that recommendation and dismisses the complaint. 

The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal without leave to amend. The court cannot 

exclude the possibility that plaintiff could assert a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, such as a 

claim based on the Eighth Amendment. Cf. Objections at 2 (“Plaintiff in this case was sent to 

prison as punishment, not for punishment.”). The court therefore permits an amended complaint. 

See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Rule 

15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” (citation 

and quotation marks omitted)). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 1, 2024, are adopted in part as 

discussed above; 

 2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 13, is dismissed with leave to amend; 

3. Any amended complaint must be filed within thirty days of the date plaintiff receives 

a copy of this order; and 

 4. This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial 

proceedings. 

DATED: December 6, 2024. 

Case 2:24-cv-00117-KJM-JDP Document 18 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 2