Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00240/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00240-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mendosa Powers
Defendant
Frank Reynolds
Plaintiff

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

FRANK REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MENDOSA POWERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00240-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND

DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE

A CLAIM

(Docs. 12 and 14)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL

SHALL COUNT AS A STRIKE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915(G)

Plaintiff Frank Reynolds (“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 May 17, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings

Case 1:06-cv-00240-AWI-LJO Document 17 Filed 07/26/07 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

and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. On June

11, 2007, plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and

Recommendations.

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 Recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis. As explained by

the Magistrate Judge in the October 4, 2006 order dismissing the

original complaint with leave to amend, there can be no liability

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or

connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v.

Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9 Cir. 1980). The amended th

complaint fails to sufficiently link the Defendants to the

alleged constitutional violations. In addition, the amended

complaint fails to allege how Defendants knew of the risk to

Plaintiff’s serious medical condition and how, knowing of that

risk, they disregarded it. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837-45 (1994). 

The court is required to give Plaintiff notice of a

complaint’s pleading deficiencies and at least one opportunity to

amend the complaint to state a claim prior to dismissal. See 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (if court th

determines that complaint 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) th

(prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to

Case 1:06-cv-00240-AWI-LJO Document 17 Filed 07/26/07 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

amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim). Here,

Plaintiff was already given notice of the complaint’s

deficiencies. The amended complaint does not resolve these

problems. Plaintiff is either unable or unwilling to amend his

complaint to state a claim. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 17, 2007,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for

plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted under section 1983; and

3. This dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00240-AWI-LJO Document 17 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 3