Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01695/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01695-2/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

ANDRE L. REVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STU SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-01695-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 14)

Plaintiff Andre Revis is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action brought 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 302.

On January 16, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. No. 13) be dismissed due 

to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. No. 14.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 11.) On February 12, 2020, after 

receiving an extension of time to file his objections, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 18.)

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

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 

Case 1:18-cv-01695-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 02/25/20 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

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis.

As has been the case with plaintiff’s FAC and the original complaint that preceded it, his 

objections are difficult to decipher. Moreover, even those portions of plaintiff’s thirty-eight page 

objections that are discernable, do not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s findings that: 

(1) the FAC violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that it lists twenty Rules 

Violations Reports that are allegedly subject to challenge, names forty-five individuals as 

defendants without any explanation as to what claims are asserted against each named defendant; 

and (2) of the claims that the magistrate judge was able to discern by liberally construing 

plaintiff’s FAC in light of is pro se status, the FAC fails to state a cognizable claims for a 

violation of plaintiff’s due process rights, retaliation or unlawful search and/or seizure. (Doc. No. 

14 at 5–11.) Plaintiff was previously warned that his initial complaint was difficult to decipher, 

was provided the relevant legal standards governing the claims it appeared he might be 

attempting to assert, and was granted leaved to amend. (See Doc. No. 10.) Nonetheless, the FAC 

suffers from the same defects, as do plaintiff’s objections. Those objections do not provide any 

basis to question the conclusion reached in the pending findings and recommendations.

Accordingly,

1. The January 16, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 14) are adopted;

2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for 

relief; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01695-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 2