(PC) Yates v. Pfeiffer et al, No. 1:2019cv00641 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations, and Dismissing Action for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/26/19. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY YATES, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00641-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF No. 10] Plaintiff Anthony Yates is appearing pro se in and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On May 23, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending 22 that the instant action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief and amendment 23 would be futile. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice 24 that objections were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on June 13, 2019. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the 27 Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 28 Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a meaningful post-deprivation remedy was 1 1 unavailable to him. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 535 (1984) (holding that deprivation of 2 property does not violate due process if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available and 3 explaining that state tort actions are meaningful post-deprivation remedies); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 4 813, 816–17 (9th Cir. 1994) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any 5 property deprivations.”); see also Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810d–996.6. Plaintiff’s objections do not change 6 this conclusion. 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued May 23, 2019 (ECF No. 10), are adopted in full; 9 10 2. The instant action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 11 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: November 26, 2019 15 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 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.
