(PS) Forte v. Merced County, et al., No. 1:2015cv00147 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 38 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Dismissing Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and Denying Plaintiff's Request for ECF Participation; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 33 Motion to Refer the Case to District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., and for an Order Requiring Investigation by the U.S. Attorney signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/04/2016. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUGENE E. FORTE, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:15-cv-00147-DAD-BAM Plaintiff, v. MERCED COUNTY et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ECF PARTICIPATION 16 (Doc. Nos. 32, 34, 38) 17 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS TO REFER THE CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. AND FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING INVESTIGATION BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY 18 19 20 (Doc. No. 33) 21 22 23 Plaintiff Eugene Forte is appearing pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was 24 referred to United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 25 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 26 On March 29, 2016, plaintiff filed his second amended complaint seeking relief for 27 constitutional violations against numerous defendants. (Doc. No. 32.) On August 11, 2016, the 28 1 1 assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that (1) plaintiff’s 2 second amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim, and (2) plaintiff’s 3 request to file documents electronically via the court’s CM/ECF system be denied. (Doc. No. 4 38.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 5 objections were to be filed within fourteen days of service. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on 6 August 29, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 41, 42.) 7 In his objections, plaintiff refuses to “dignify” the findings and recommendations by 8 providing specific objections that identify the portions of the magistrate judge’s findings to which 9 his objections are made. (Doc. No. 41 at 2.) Instead, plaintiff asks this court to “personally 10 review the Original complaint . . . so that [the court] can see . . . that Magistrate McAuliffe is a 11 liar.” (Id.) Moreover, plaintiff requests leave to amend his second amended complaint. (Id. at 2– 12 3.) Finally, plaintiff argues again that he should be granted permission to file electronic 13 documents electronically, relying on an order in a separate litigation permitting him to do so. 14 (Doc. No. 42 at 2.) 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 16 de novo review of this case, including plaintiff’s objections. Having carefully reviewed the entire 17 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 18 proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not address the magistrate judge’s underlying findings 19 that his second amended complaint fails to state a claim and that his action provides no basis upon 20 which to award him monetary relief. Rather, plaintiff wastes his time launching meritless attacks 21 upon the court. Additionally, the court has carefully considered whether plaintiff may further 22 amend his second amended complaint to state claims upon which relief can be granted. “The 23 court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “Valid reasons 24 for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California 25 Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). See also 26 Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) 27 (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile 28 amendments). Because, as the magistrate judge found, further amendment would be futile in this 2 1 case, leave to amend shall be denied. (See Doc. No. 38 at 11–12.) 2 Accordingly, 3 1. The August 11, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 38) are adopted in full; 4 2. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc. No. 32) is dismissed with prejudice for 5 failure to state a cognizable claim; 6 3. Plaintiff’s request to file documents electronically (Doc. No. 34) is denied; 7 4. Plaintiff’s request to refer the case to District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Doc. No. 33) is denied as having been rendered moot;1 and 8 9 10 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: November 4, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 26 27 28 On March 29, 2016, plaintiff separately filed an ex parte application requesting that (1) this case be referred to District Judge Morrison England, Jr., and (2) the court require the United States Attorney to further investigate alleged misconduct by Merced and Stanislaus Counties, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Doc. No. 33.) The court notes that far as it is aware, there is no mechanism by which the court can order a federal criminal investigation or prosecution of alleged misconduct. Such prosecutorial functions are left to the discretion of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Attorney General. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
