Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01237/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01237-10/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID NATHANIEL ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. HUCKLEBERRY, et al.

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-01237-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM

(Doc. No. 35)

Plaintiff David Nathaniel Roberts is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On May 17, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s fifth amended 

complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed 

with prejudice due to plaintiff’s repeated failures to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. No. 

35.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days of service. (Id. at 6.) After receiving an

extension of time to file his objections, plaintiff timely filed three sets of objections on June 28, 

July 1, and July 8, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 37, 42, 43, 44, 45.)

/////

Case 1:18-cv-01237-DAD-SAB Document 57 Filed 03/10/20 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 304, the 

court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis. 

In his objections, plaintiff reiterates the allegations contained in his fifth amended 

complaint and contends that the court has ignored his constitutional rights. (Doc. Nos. 42, 43, 44, 

45.) However, plaintiff failed to address in his objections the magistrate judge’s finding that his 

fifth amended complaint failed to allege a cognizable claim against any of the named defendants. 

(Doc. No. 35.) Although the magistrate judge found in earlier screening orders that plaintiff had 

alleged cognizable claims in his second and third amended complaints (see Doc. No. 20, 25), 

plaintiff declined to proceed on the claims the magistrate judge had found to be cognizable and 

instead filed a fourth amended complaint in which he failed to re-allege all of the facts that had 

previously established cognizable claims. (See Doc. No. 27, 32.) 

Despite the magistrate judge granting plaintiff leave to file a fifth amended complaint and 

warning him specifically that an amended complaint must be fully complete in and of itself, 

(Doc. No. 32 at 4, 7) (citing Local Rule 220), plaintiff filed his fifth amended complaint without 

alleging facts necessary to sustain any cognizable claim, including those previously found by the 

magistrate judge to be cognizable. (See Doc. No. 33.) Plaintiff’s action thus necessarily fails. 

Because the court has already specifically instructed plaintiff on how to cure the defects in 

his complaints four different times to no avail, granting him further leave to amend would be 

futile in this case. 

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 35) issued on May 17, 2019, are

adopted in full;

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:18-cv-01237-DAD-SAB Document 57 Filed 03/10/20 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

2. This action is dismissed without leave to amend due to plaintiff’s repeated failures

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01237-DAD-SAB Document 57 Filed 03/10/20 Page 3 of 3