Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00697/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00697-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE OWEN DUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEORGE GALAZA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00697-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 24)

ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION

Plaintiff, Dale Owen Dustin (“plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action 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 72-302.

On February 5, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

a Recommendation herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On

February 25, 2008, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

//

Case 1:05-cv-00697-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 03/31/08 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

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. While

difficult to completely comprehend, the objections appear to

contend that the Court should allow Plaintiff to amend the

complaint prior to dismissal. The Court recognizes that prior to

dismissing a pro se complaint brought by a prisoner, the Court

must give the Plaintiff notice of the complaint’s pleading

deficiencies and an opportunity to amend. See Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (if court determines that complaint th

fails to state claim, leave to amend may be granted to extent

that complaint’s deficiencies can be cured); Noll v. Carlson,

809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner opportunity be th

given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to

dismissing for failure to state a claim). However, the

Magistrate Judge has already given Plaintiff notice of the

complaint’s pleading deficiencies and an opportunity to amend. 

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff is

either unable or unwilling to file a complaint that meets the

standards set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, links the Defendants to the alleged constitutional

violations, and states a claim. 

In the objections, Plaintiff also contends that the

Magistrate Judge failed to address his excessive force claims. 

The Court has reviewed the complaint. While the complaint

appears to attempt to allege condition of confinement claims, it

Case 1:05-cv-00697-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 03/31/08 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

27

28

3

does not appear to allege excessive force claims. 

Finally, Plaintiff appears to argue in the objections that

he cannot link the named Defendants to the constitutional

violations because he is unsure what officers violated his rights

as officers do not identify themselves when they are violating

Plaintiffs’ rights and do not have obvious “name tags.” If

Plaintiff is unsure who violated his rights, it is unclear why he

choose to name these particular Defendants. Regardless,

Plaintiff does not attempt to link even unknown officers to the

alleged constitutional violations. Based on the amended

complaint, the Findings and Recommendations, and the objections,

the Court agrees the complaint must be dismissed. The Court

agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning, and declines to

exorcize its discretion to grant leave to file yet another

amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed February 5,

2008, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. This entire action is DISMISSED without leave to amend;

and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00697-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 3