Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00254/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00254-3/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JENNIFER THURSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00254-KES-HBK (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Doc. 9

Plaintiff Nathaniel Washington is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

on his original complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 1, 6. 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 April 19, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 

dismiss plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief could 

be granted. Doc. 9. Specifically, the findings and recommendations conclude that Judge 

Thurston enjoys judicial immunity for her judicial act of denying plaintiff’s habeas petition, and 

separately, that plaintiff’s conspiracy claims are “wholly conclusory and insufficient to support a 

§ 1983 claim [and] are completely frivolous.” Id. at 5-7. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the 

findings and recommendations. Doc. 13. 

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

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the 

Case 1:24-cv-00254-KES-HBK Document 14 Filed 12/20/24 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

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s 

objections do not undermine the analysis of the findings and recommendations; indeed, they do 

not address any of the reasoning in the findings and recommendations. Rather, they purport to 

assert new facts to support plaintiff’s claim of conspiracy, including alleging that a lawyer in the 

Kern County Public Defender’s Office told plaintiff more than five years ago that he “was being 

harassed and followed around everywhere that [he] went” and that Defendant Humphrey, a Kern 

County superior court judge “followed [him] around on at least three different occasions.” Doc. 

13 at 1-2. Even assuming these newly alleged facts were true, plaintiff continues to fail to state a 

claim against Judge Thurston or any other named defendant for his conspiracy claims. 

A civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons who, by some concerted 

action, intend to accomplish some unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another, which 

results in damage. Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 856 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff

claims a conspiracy existed between Judge Thurston and the other named defendants to cover up 

alleged previous conspiracies to falsely convict plaintiff and to torture him in prison. See 

generally Doc. 1. Plaintiff’s new allegations provide no factual support to indicate that any 

conspiracy plausibly existed between the named defendants. Nor do plaintiff’s objections 

indicate that he could plausibly allege further facts to support his claim if plaintiff were given 

leave to amend. Even more, as the magistrate judge correctly noted, plaintiff’s claims against the 

principal defendant, Judge Thurston,1are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity because the 

complaint seeks to challenge her judicial act of ruling on his habeas petition. Id. at 5-6.

Plaintiff also requests “an extended time period to obtain evidence” regarding the alleged

conspiracy and subpoenas that he can send to the Kern County District Attorney’s Office because 

1 As the findings and recommendations note, though the complaint names several people as 

defendants, only Judge Thurston and Judge Humphrey are explicitly named in the body of the 

complaint. See Doc. 9 at 7; see generally Doc. 1. The only “exceptions” to this being the 

complaint’s allegations that “Judge Jennifer Thurston . . . may have acted in conspiracy with the 

other defendants named in order to cover-up conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to rape and 

torture” and that “she informally communicated with other co-conspirators.” Doc. 1 (emphasis 

added). However, the first statement is conclusory and clearly does not meet the plausibility 

standard set forth in Iqbal and Twombly and the second is not factually sufficient to state a claim 

for conspiracy against Judge Thurston or any other named defendant. 

Case 1:24-cv-00254-KES-HBK Document 14 Filed 12/20/24 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

he has “strong reason to believe” Judge Thurston was engaged in a conspiracy with others. Doc. 

13 at 2-3. However, plaintiff is not entitled to discovery to attempt to remedy a facially deficient 

complaint; a plaintiff “must satisfy the pleading requirements of [Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure] 8 before the discovery stage, not after it.” See Mujica v. AirScan, Inc., 771 F.3d 580, 

593 n.7 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed on April 19, 2024, Doc. 9, are ADOPTED IN 

FULL;

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim;

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00254-KES-HBK Document 14 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 3