-SKO (PC) Carroll v. Clark et al, No. 1:2009cv01701 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Action With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim Under Section 1983, and Directing Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment 18 , 20 , 23 ; ORDER Counting Dismissal as a Strike Under 28 U.S.C. , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 4/14/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
-SKO (PC) Carroll v. Clark et al Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 VERNON D. CARROLL, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01701-OWW-SKO PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT v. KEN CLARK, et al., 13 Defendants. (Docs. 18, 20, and 23) 14 ORDER COUNTING DISMISSAL AS A STRIKE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G) 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff Vernon D. Carroll, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 28, 2009. The matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 25, 2011, a Findings and Recommendations was filed in which the Magistrate 21 Judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint and recommended dismissal of this action for failure 22 to state a claim under section 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. After receiving an extension of time, 23 Plaintiff filed a timely Objection on April 11, 2011.1 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 25 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 26 27 1 28 Plaintiff also seeks an order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process. That request is moot in light of this order and is denied. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff has not stated any 2 claims for violation of the Eighth Amendment and this action shall be dismissed. In his objections, 3 Plaintiff references contributory and comparative negligence. (Doc. 28, p. 2.) The Court expresses 4 no opinion whether Plaintiff may be able to state any claims under California tort law, as absent a 5 viable federal claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 7 2001). 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. 10 11 The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on February 25, 2011, in full; 2. 12 This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983; 13 3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment against Plaintiff; and 14 4. This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: April 14, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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.