Petersen v. Buyard et al, No. 1:2019cv00235 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/16/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KYLE PETERSEN, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-00235-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MEKISHA ROBERSON-BUYARD, (Doc. Nos. 16, 17, 19, 20) Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Kyle Petersen is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 18 this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 4, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 22 granted. (Doc. No. 16.) The findings and recommendations were mailed to plaintiff and 23 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days of service. (Id.) 24 On October 9, 2019, plaintiff filed a request, which the court construes as a motion for 25 leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 19.) On October 15, 2019, plaintiff filed a second 26 motion to amend, which the court also construes as a motion for leave to file an amended 27 complaint. (Doc. No. 20.) No objections to the pending findings and recommendations, 28 however, have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 3 motions for leave to file an amended complaint, the court finds the findings and recommendations 4 to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 5 As plaintiff has acknowledged may be the case, his claims are barred by Heck v. 6 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In addition, because defendant’s parole searches of plaintiff’s 7 cell phones were authorized by California law and fall within the scope of searches allowed under 8 the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s parole, plaintiff has not stated cognizable Fourth 9 Amendment claims. See United States v. Johnson, 875 F.3d 1265, 1273-76 (9th Cir. 2017). 10 Because plaintiff’s proposed amendments would not remedy these deficiencies in his complaint’s 11 assertion of his claims, the granting of leave to amend would be futile will not be granted.1 12 Accordingly: 13 1. 14 adopted in full; 15 2. 16 Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 19, 20) are denied; 17 3. 18 This action is dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; and 19 20 The findings and recommendations filed on October 4, 2019 (Doc. No. 16) are 4. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: December 16, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff also failed to provide the Court with a copy of the proposed amended complaint as required under Local Rule 137(c), which requires a party to attach a proposed amended complaint as an exhibit to the motion seeking leave to amend). 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.
