Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00538-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carl Eckstrom
Plaintiff
Martin Hoshino
Defendant

Document Text:

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

CARL ECKSTROM,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN HOSHINO,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB

ORDER

Plaintiff Carl Eckstrom (“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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On August 27, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 

served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 26.) On September 13, 2018, 

Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff has since 

filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 31), a Third Amended 

Complaint (ECF No. 32), and a Motion for Ruling on Objections to Findings and 

Recommendations (ECF No. 33). 

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 35 Filed 01/23/20 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

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 

judge’s analysis. 

The issues with the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23) identified by the screening 

order (ECF No. 26 at 3–4) are not ameliorated by Plaintiff’s objections or his proposed Third 

Amended Complaint.

1

 Notably, Plaintiff has still failed to allege how any of the named 

Defendants were aware of any specific and current threat to his safety posed by the Mexican 

Mafia gang. Plaintiff refers to various exhibits and asserts vague and generalized allegations, 

such as, “there was a grooming of the record to support [prison staff’s desired conclusion]” (ECF 

No. 29 at 12), but these contentions remain unsupported by any non-conclusory factual 

allegations. It is clear to the Court that Plaintiff disagrees with the prison staff’s assessment as to 

the danger posed to his person by the Mexican Mafia. However, such disagreement is not in and 

of itself indicative of deliberate indifference which, instead, requires a defendant’s subjective 

awareness of a risk. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[T]he official must both 

be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 

exists, and he must also draw the inference.”). Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege facts 

showing that each of the named Defendants had such awareness. Further, he has had multiple 

opportunities to state a viable claim and has repeatedly failed to do so.

///

///

 

1 The Court has reviewed the proffered Third Amended Complaint. Because it does not fix the 

infirmities noted in the Findings and Recommendations, the Court declines to allow the 

amendment. Carrico v. City of S.F., 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend may be 

denied if the proposed amendment is futile because it would be subject to dismissal). 

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 35 Filed 01/23/20 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 27, 2018 (ECF No. 26), are adopted 

in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23) is DISMISSED, without leave to 

amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim; 

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 31) is 

DENIED;

4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling (ECF No. 33) is DENIED as moot; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 23, 2020

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 35 Filed 01/23/20 Page 3 of 3