(PC) Carter v. California Health Care Services et al, No. 1:2017cv01374 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 26 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DISMISSING Action With Prejudice Due to Plaintiff's Failure to State a Cognizable Claim; and ORDER DENYING 34 Plaintiff's Miscellaneous Motion signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/2/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH REAGAN CARTER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al., No. 1: 17-cv-01374-DAD-GSA (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM (Doc. No. 26) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Keith Reagan Carter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 15, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended 22 complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed 23 with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 26.) The findings 24 and recommendations also recommended that the granting of further leave to amend would be 25 futile because the defects in plaintiff’s second amended complaint were not capable of being 26 cured through amendment. (Id. at 10.) On October 10, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to the 27 findings and recommendations. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 3 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 by proper analysis. In his objections, plaintiff does not meaningfully dispute that his complaint 5 fails to allege a cognizable claim and that leave to amend would be futile given that the defects in 6 his complaint are not curable by amendment. Accordingly, the court will adopt the findings and 7 recommendations. Lastly, on November 26, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion with the court “for ancillary funds 8 9 and service” and a “supplemental application to state a claim.” (Doc. Nos. 34, 35.) In the first 10 filing, plaintiff asks the court for “ancillary funds in the amount of $500.00,” which he claims are 11 “reasonably necessary for preparation and or presentation while being housed in . . . Jail.” (Doc. 12 No. 34 at 1.) The court does not have the ability to provide plaintiff with monetary funds. With 13 respect to plaintiff’s second miscellaneous filing, it appears that he is seeking leave to amend his 14 complaint to add additional claims, including claims for intentional infliction of emotional 15 distress and unfair business practices. (Doc. No. 35 at 1.) The court construes this filing as a 16 motion brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). However, “a district court 17 need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is 18 sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” 19 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, for the 20 reasons stated in the pending findings and recommendations, the court finds that further 21 amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the court will deny both of plaintiff’s miscellaneous 22 motions. 23 For the reasons set forth above: 24 1. adopted in full; 25 2. 26 This action is dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim; 27 28 The findings and recommendations issued on August 15, 2019 (Doc. No. 26) are ///// 2 1 3. Plaintiff’s miscellaneous motions (Doc. Nos. 34, 35) are denied; and 2 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
