Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01061/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01061-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenny Benitez
Defendant
Carlos Gilbert Law
Plaintiff
Valero Gas Station
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS GILBERT LAW, CASE NO. CV F 06-1061 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

KENNY BENITEZ,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Carlos Gilbert Law (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner and proceeds pro se and in forma

pauperis in this purported civil rights action. On August 14, 2006, plaintiff filed his original form 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint (“original complaint”) to allege that defendant Kenny Benitez (“Mr. Benitez”),

a Valero gas station clerk, assaulted plaintiff. The original complaint also named “Valero Gas Station

Owners” as defendants and sought “money damages from each person held lible [sic].” The magistrate

judge issued his August 17, 2006 order to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint on grounds that it failed

to allege a cognizable claim and to establish this Court’s jurisdiction and appeared intended to vex

defendants. 

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 2
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

On August 28, 2006, plaintiff filed his form amended complaint (“amended complaint”) to

appear to name Mr. Benitez and “Valero gas station owners” as defendants. The magistrate judge

construed the amended complaint to attempt to allege civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981

(“section 1981"). The amended complaint acknowledges that “defendants are not under color of state

law” and alleges plaintiff was denied service “because of my race.”

The magistrate judge issued September 1, 2006 findings and recommendations to dismiss this

action without prejudice on grounds that the amended complaint fails to satisfy pleading requirements

and to allege a cognizable section 1981 or otherwise valid claim and appears intended to vex defendants.

Plaintiff filed no timely objections to the findings and recommendations.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s September 1, 2006 findings and

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s September 1, 2006 findings and

recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this action without prejudice on grounds that the amended complaint fails

to satisfy pleading requirements and to allege a cognizable section 1981 or otherwise

valid claim and appears intended to vex defendants; and

3. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 2